Re: [PATCH 08/10] drm/i915: check that we hold an RPM wakelock ref before we put it

From: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] drm/i915: check that we hold an RPM wakelock ref before we put it
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:00:38 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1450263638.4707.15.camel@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1450203038-5150-9-git-send-email-imre.deak@intel.com>

On ti, 2015-12-15 at 20:10 +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> v2-v3:
> - unchanged
> v4:
> - keep the corresponding check in the get helper (Chris)

This is put helper you patched, so I think the above message is
incorrect.

Regards, Joonas

> 
> Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c
> index 29157fb..82c55a9 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c
> @@ -2282,6 +2282,7 @@ void intel_runtime_pm_put(struct
> drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  	struct drm_device *dev = dev_priv->dev;
>  	struct device *device = &dev->pdev->dev;
>  
> +	assert_rpm_wakelock_held(dev_priv);
>  	atomic_dec(&dev_priv->pm.wakeref_count);
>  
>  	pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(device);
-- 
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx