From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Vetter Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/16] drm/i915: remove an indirection level on PC8 functions Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:56:47 +0100 Message-ID: <20140311145647.GF30571@phenom.ffwll.local> References: <1394233699-3741-1-git-send-email-przanoni@gmail.com> <1394233699-3741-8-git-send-email-przanoni@gmail.com> <20140311082024.GB7348@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-ee0-f51.google.com (mail-ee0-f51.google.com [74.125.83.51]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DA47FA509 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:56:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ee0-f51.google.com with SMTP id c13so3796124eek.38 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:56:52 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140311082024.GB7348@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org To: Chris Wilson , Paulo Zanoni , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Paulo Zanoni List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 08:20:24AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 08:08:10PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > > From: Paulo Zanoni > > > > After the latest changes, the indirection is useless. > > > > Reviewed-by: Jesse Barnes > > Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 16 ++-------------- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > index 88348d6..e49c217 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > @@ -6812,12 +6812,6 @@ void __hsw_do_enable_pc8(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > > hsw_disable_lcpll(dev_priv, true, true); > > } > > > > -static void __hsw_enable_package_c8(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > > -{ > > - WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&dev_priv->pc8.lock)); > > - intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv); > > -} > > - > > void __hsw_do_disable_pc8(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > > { > > struct drm_device *dev = dev_priv->dev; > > @@ -6845,19 +6839,13 @@ void __hsw_do_disable_pc8(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > > dev_priv->pc8.enabled = false; > > } > > > > -static void __hsw_disable_package_c8(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > > -{ > > - WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&dev_priv->pc8.lock)); > > - intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv); > > -} > > - > > void hsw_enable_package_c8(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > > { > > if (!HAS_PC8(dev_priv->dev)) > > return; > > > > mutex_lock(&dev_priv->pc8.lock); > > - __hsw_enable_package_c8(dev_priv); > > + intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv); > > mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->pc8.lock); > > } > > > > @@ -6867,7 +6855,7 @@ void hsw_disable_package_c8(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > > return; > > > > mutex_lock(&dev_priv->pc8.lock); > > - __hsw_disable_package_c8(dev_priv); > > + intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv); > > mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->pc8.lock); > > Now I am very confused about the locking. Afacs this confusion all goes away a few patches later on. Otherwise I think this would indeed be ... strange. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch