From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Don't require dev->struct_mutex
 in psr_match_conditions
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 17:01:05 +0200
Message-ID: <20140804150105.GY8727@phenom.ffwll.local>
References: <1406918955-1876-1-git-send-email-przanoni@gmail.com>
 <1407142009-24645-1-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
 <CA+gsUGRhrSGf_oqcJqVAfmgPkkBEqv---ePJobTbf=p4hnyQvA@mail.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-wi0-f170.google.com (mail-wi0-f170.google.com
 [209.85.212.170])
 by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 756ED6E40E
 for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Mon,  4 Aug 2014 08:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f170.google.com with SMTP id f8so6405002wiw.1
 for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Mon, 04 Aug 2014 08:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+gsUGRhrSGf_oqcJqVAfmgPkkBEqv---ePJobTbf=p4hnyQvA@mail.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>
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
Sender: "Intel-gfx" <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
To: Paulo Zanoni <przanoni@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>, Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 11:16:10AM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> 2014-08-04 5:46 GMT-03:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>:
> > Since I've reworked psr support to no longer require x-tiling we don't
> > check any state protected by the Giant GEM Lock. So drop that check.
> >
> > Also boo for lockdep_assert_held for not yelling when lockdep is
> > disabled.
> >
> > Cc: Paulo Zanoni <przanoni@gmail.com>
> > Reported-by: Paulo Zanoni <przanoni@gmail.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> 
> I was going to start reviewing it, but then I realized it's already merged.

Oh, I've figured I'll sneak this one by the "danvet must have reviewed-by
too" rule ;-) But I'll drop such patches asap if anyone spots something
with them ofc.

> Do we have any doc explaining all our locks/mutexes and what each one
> is supposed to protect?

Unfortunately not. It's also constantly changing (e.g. the recent
introduction of the connection_mutex) and rather shockingly often not
quite correct. Atm you need to dig through git history and for drm core
locks through all drm drivers to figure this out :(

> Anyway, the patch looks fine.

I'll count this as an ack and added it, thanks.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch