From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Recent changes
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:37:00 +0100
Message-ID: <1309257422_33463@CP5-2952>
References: <20110628093604.GG48734@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from fireflyinternet.com (server109-228-6-236.live-servers.net
	[109.228.6.236])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E85BA9E77E
	for <Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:37:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20110628093604.GG48734@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Intel-gfx <Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:36:04 +0300, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have two questions about recent changes made to the kernel driver:
> 
> 1. Looking at the intel_setup_overlay() after the commit
> ecbec53b1d00ba582f71b210ed96cafc05ebd189, it seems there is potential
> double unlock for the struct_mutex in the (unlikely) case when
> intel_overlay_map_regs() failed.

Dan Carpenter pointed out a further mistake in that we weren't handling
the pin count correctly for 945/965/g33.
 
> 2. In i915_wait_request(), after the commit
> 4697995b98417c6da9ab2708a36f5e2bc926c8ac, shouldn't the calls
> 	i915_driver_irq_preinstall(ring->dev);
> 	i915_driver_irq_postinstall(ring->dev);
> be replaced with
> 	ring->dev->driver->irq_preinstall(ring->dev);
> 	ring->dev->driver->irq_postinstall(ring->dev);
> ?

Yes.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre