On 7/30/19 1:01 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-07-30 08:19:18)
On 30/07/2019 00:47, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote:
We don't call the init_early function from within the gem code, so we
shouldn't do it for the cleanup either.
Signed-off-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospu...@intel.com>
Cc: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@linux.intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 2 ++
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 2 --
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
index f2d3d754af37..934e605e2466 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
@@ -951,6 +951,7 @@ static int i915_driver_early_probe(struct drm_i915_private
*dev_priv)
intel_uc_cleanup_early(&dev_priv->gt.uc);
i915_gem_cleanup_early(dev_priv);
err_workqueues:
+ intel_gt_cleanup_early(&dev_priv->gt);
i915_workqueues_cleanup(dev_priv);
return ret;
}
@@ -966,6 +967,7 @@ static void i915_driver_late_release(struct
drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
intel_power_domains_cleanup(dev_priv);
intel_uc_cleanup_early(&dev_priv->gt.uc);
i915_gem_cleanup_early(dev_priv);
+ intel_gt_cleanup_early(&dev_priv->gt);
Note the change in naming convention, intel_gt_driver_late_release().
-Chris
Does it make sense to flip only the gt function? it'd look terribly out
of place close to all those other cleanup_early() calls. I can follow up
with a patch to flip them all at the same time if that works for you.
Daniele
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
