From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/23] drm/i915: add forcewake functions
 that don't touch runtime PM
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 17:56:58 +0100
Message-ID: <20140305165658.GH17001@phenom.ffwll.local>
References: <1393540010-1582-1-git-send-email-przanoni@gmail.com>
	<1393540010-1582-8-git-send-email-przanoni@gmail.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-ea0-f172.google.com (mail-ea0-f172.google.com
	[209.85.215.172])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE76AFA7F6
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Wed,  5 Mar 2014 08:57:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ea0-f172.google.com with SMTP id l9so1165921eaj.31
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Wed, 05 Mar 2014 08:57:02 -0800 (PST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1393540010-1582-8-git-send-email-przanoni@gmail.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: Paulo Zanoni <przanoni@gmail.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 07:26:34PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
> 
> To solve a chicken-and-egg problem. Currently when we get/put
> forcewake we also get/put runtime PM and this works fine because the
> runtime PM code doesn't need forcewake. But we're going to merge PC8
> and runtime PM into a single feature, and the PC8 code (the LCPLL
> code) does need the forcewake, so that specific piece of code needs to
> call the _no_rpm version so it doesn't try to get runtime PM in the
> code that gets runtime PM.
> 
> For now the new functions are unused, we'll use them on the patch that
> merges PC8 with runtime PM.
> 
> Also notice that, so simplify things, the put() function doesn't use
> the workqueue, since the workqueue also puts runtime PM.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>

See my previous mail, but I'm still freaked out about this. Doing runtime
pm hidden deep down in our register I/O functions is imo rather deeply
troubling ... I'll punt for now on this.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch