On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 12:25:56PM -0700, Souza, Jose wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-04-03 at 17:27 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 04:35:35PM -0700, José Roberto de Souza
> > wrote:
> > > Even when driver is reloaded and hits this scenario the PSR mutex
> > > should be initialized, otherwise reading PSR debugfs status will
> > > execute mutex_lock() over a mutex that was not initialized.
> > >
> > > Cc: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandi...@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.v...@intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.so...@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 1 -
> > > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > index c80bb3003a7d..a84da931c3be 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > @@ -1227,7 +1227,6 @@ void intel_psr_init(struct drm_i915_private
> > > *dev_priv)
> > > if (val) {
> > > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("PSR interruption error set\n");
> > > dev_priv->psr.sink_not_reliable = true;
> > > - return;
> >
> > There are other returns above and if debugfs hits this case maybe it
> > is worth to move the mutex initialization up instead?
>
>
> We have those two returns in PSR debugfs, !HAS_PSR(dev_priv) and !psr-
> >sink_support and in this cases we don't have any PSR functionality so
> not worthy to initialize anything PSR related.
oh, indeed.
Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.v...@intel.com>
>
> >
> > > }
> > >
> > > /* Set link_standby x link_off defaults */
> > > --
> > > 2.21.0
> > >
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
