From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/16] drm/i915: More checks for psr.enabled
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:41:34 +0200
Message-ID: <20140618124134.GE5821@phenom.ffwll.local>
References: <1403092757-31421-1-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
 <1403092757-31421-10-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
 <20140618122706.GC31023@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-we0-f178.google.com (mail-we0-f178.google.com
 [74.125.82.178])
 by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BBD46E599
 for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 05:41:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f178.google.com with SMTP id x48so772878wes.23
 for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 05:41:41 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140618122706.GC31023@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>
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
Sender: "Intel-gfx" <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>, Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 01:27:06PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 01:59:10PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > We need to make sure that no one else is using this in the
> > enable function and also that the work item hasn't raced
> > with the disabled function.
> > 
> > v2: Improve bisectability by moving one hunk to an earlier patch.
> > 
> > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 5 +++++
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > index 910f73de3a92..870219ff1187 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > @@ -1844,6 +1844,11 @@ void intel_edp_psr_enable(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> >  		return;
> >  	}
> 
> Is this the tail of a HAS_PSR() now made obsolete?

Yeah, we have a bit of redundancy here now I think. Otoh once we have
locking they make sense again since HAS_PSR can be checked without
grabbing the psr lock, while psr.enabled can't. So I think it makes sense
to keep them.
-Daniel

>   
> > +	if (dev_priv->psr.enabled) {
> > +		DRM_DEBUG_KMS("PSR already in use\n");
> > +		return;
> > +	}
> -Chris
> 
> -- 
> Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre

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