From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Widawsky Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Use chipset-specific irq installers Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:48:57 -0700 Message-ID: <20110628174857.GA3022@snipes.kumite> References: <1309258131-19869-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cloud01.chad-versace.us (184-106-247-128.static.cloud-ips.com [184.106.247.128]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B40CD9E880 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:49:26 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1309258131-19869-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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: Chris Wilson Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:48:51AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > Konstantin Belousov pointed out that 4697995b98417 replaced the generic > i915_driver_irq_*install() functions with chipset specific routines > accessible only through driver->irq_*install(). So update the sanity > check in i915_request_wait() to match. > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++----------- > 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > index 60268173..add0141 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > @@ -2029,6 +2029,25 @@ i915_gem_retire_work_handler(struct work_struct *work) > mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex); > } > > +static void assert_irq_enabled(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring) > +{ > + struct drm_device *dev = ring->dev; > + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private; > + u32 ier; > + > + if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev)) > + ier = I915_READ(DEIER) | I915_READ(GTIER); > + else > + ier = I915_READ(IER); > + > + if (!ier) { > + DRM_ERROR("something (likely vbetool) disabled " > + "interrupts, re-enabling\n"); > + dev->driver->irq_preinstall(dev); > + dev->driver->irq_postinstall(dev); > + } > +} > + > /** > * Waits for a sequence number to be signaled, and cleans up the > * request and object lists appropriately for that event. > @@ -2038,7 +2057,6 @@ i915_wait_request(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring, > uint32_t seqno) > { > drm_i915_private_t *dev_priv = ring->dev->dev_private; > - u32 ier; > int ret = 0; > > BUG_ON(seqno == 0); > @@ -2073,16 +2091,7 @@ i915_wait_request(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring, > } > > if (!i915_seqno_passed(ring->get_seqno(ring), seqno)) { > - if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(ring->dev)) > - ier = I915_READ(DEIER) | I915_READ(GTIER); > - else > - ier = I915_READ(IER); > - if (!ier) { > - DRM_ERROR("something (likely vbetool) disabled " > - "interrupts, re-enabling\n"); > - i915_driver_irq_preinstall(ring->dev); > - i915_driver_irq_postinstall(ring->dev); > - } > + assert_irq_enabled(ring); > > trace_i915_gem_request_wait_begin(ring, seqno); > I'm not totally thrilled with the name. It would make more sense to me if you had something like: if (!is_irq_enabled(ring)) { DRM_ERROR(...); dev->driver->irq_preinstall(ring->dev); dev->driver->irq_postinstall(ring->dev); } This allows allows for error checking at other points without changing state. I'm very nitpicky when it comes to the work assert :p Ben