On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:53:17 -0700, Ben Widawsky <b...@bwidawsk.net> wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <b...@bwidawsk.net>
Just to annoy you, this needs to be split up into the various categories of fixes. Because... > static void ironlake_crtc_dpms(struct drm_crtc *crtc, int mode) > @@ -3067,9 +3074,12 @@ static void i9xx_crtc_disable(struct drm_crtc *crtc) > intel_disable_pll(dev_priv, pipe); > > intel_crtc->active = false; > + > + mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex); > intel_update_fbc(dev); > intel_update_watermarks(dev); > intel_clear_scanline_wait(dev); > + mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex); > } This is overly correct. You can put a comment here to say that we will never attempt to use FORCEWAKE here and that these registers are protected by the mode_config lock. Except for intel_clear_scanline_wait, but that itself is is longing to be killed now. If we haven't fixed the underlying bug that we were working around by now, we have been too lax. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
