From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Wilson Subject: Re: forcewake v5 Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 07:39:27 +0100 Message-ID: <1bdc18$ka879k@fmsmga002.fm.intel.com> References: <1303343599-18509-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 879BE9E789 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:39:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1303343599-18509-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net> 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: Ben Widawsky , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:53:14 -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > Once you're done laughing that I got up to v5 (I think I skipped a v3, > and v1 was the IOCTls, so it's really more like a v3) for patches meant > to simply allow register reads and wites... > > Back to struct_mutex since it turned out to be my mistake regarding the > IIR problem. The only issue in the interrupt handler was rps, which has > been moved to a workqueue. > > Struct_mutex must be held to forcewake, or relinquish forcwake. Ok, I got to the end. I feel really squeamish that our register read/write routines are getting seriously overcomplicated for interrupt work and would like a cut down version for IRQ context. But other than that and some silly code that needs to be improved in light of your review, it's looking good. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre