From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] drm/i915: don't schedule
 force_wake_timer at gen6_read
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 11:27:10 +0100
Message-ID: <20140308102710.GK25837@phenom.ffwll.local>
References: <1394233524-3522-1-git-send-email-przanoni@gmail.com>
	<1394233524-3522-2-git-send-email-przanoni@gmail.com>
	<20140308093601.GF20302@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mail-ee0-f48.google.com (mail-ee0-f48.google.com [74.125.83.48])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69754FAAE3
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Sat,  8 Mar 2014 02:27:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ee0-f48.google.com with SMTP id e51so2152914eek.21
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Sat, 08 Mar 2014 02:27:14 -0800 (PST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140308093601.GF20302@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
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@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>, Paulo Zanoni <przanoni@gmail.com>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 09:36:01AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 08:05:19PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> > From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
> > 
> > So far force_wake_timer was only used by gen6_gt_force_wake_put. Since
> > we always had balanced gen6_gt_force_wake_get/put calls, we could
> > guarantee balanced calls to intel_runtime_pm_get/put.
> 
> I'm sure you can think of a trivial way to put things back into balance.

Yeah, I think a __force_wake_timer which doesn't do the runtime put should
be good enough. Chris, can I sign you up for this since Paulo is now on
vacation for 2 weeks? No real hurry since we need to stall for QA to hit
this anyway - if they still fail to properly run the runtime pm tests then
I need to go into full maintainer beserk mode ;-)

Cheers, Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch