From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 45/53] drm/i915/bdw: Do not call
 intel_runtime_pm_get() in an interrupt
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:26:36 +0200
Message-ID: <20140729102636.GK4747@phenom.ffwll.local>
References: <1402673891-14618-1-git-send-email-oscar.mateo@intel.com>
 <1402673891-14618-46-git-send-email-oscar.mateo@intel.com>
 <20140618205413.GH5821@phenom.ffwll.local>
 <20140726102738.GA21056@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
 <20140728085406.GX4747@phenom.ffwll.local>
 <20140729073748.GD21570@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-f181.google.com (mail-we0-f181.google.com
 [74.125.82.181])
 by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A10F1897CD
 for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 03:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f181.google.com with SMTP id k48so8752426wev.12
 for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 03:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140729073748.GD21570@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@ffwll.ch>, oscar.mateo@intel.com, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 08:37:48AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:54:06AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 11:27:38AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:54:13PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 04:38:03PM +0100, oscar.mateo@intel.com wrote:
> > > > > From: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@intel.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Or with a spinlock grabbed, because it might sleep, which is not
> > > > > a nice thing to do. Instead, do the runtime_pm get/put together
> > > > > with the create/destroy request, and handle the forcewake get/put
> > > > > directly.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@intel.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Looks like a fixup that should be squashed into relevant earlier patches.
> > > 
> > > The whole gen6_gt_force_wake_get() calling intel_runtime_pm_get() is
> > > broken due to this - we must be able to read registers in atomic
> > > context!
> > > 
> > > Please revert c8c8fb33b37766acf6474784b0d5245dab9a1690
> > 
> > force_wake_get can't call runtime_pm_get becuase pm_get can sleep. So if
> > you want to read registers from atomic context you have to have a runtime
> > pm reference from someone else.
> 
> Nope. That cannot work.

Well it works currently. So where do you see the problem?
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch