On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, Daniel Vetter <dan...@ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 02:12:10PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch> wrote: >> > A bunch of warnings fire on some ->irq_postinstall hooks since those >> > can enable interrupts (e.g. rps interrupts). And then our ordering >> > self-checks fire and complain. >> > >> > To fix that set the tracking boolen before enabling the irqs witho >> > drm_irq_install. Quoting the discussion with Jesse why that's safe: >> >> Yi Sun's testing result needs to be addressed one way or another before >> merging this: >> >> http://mid.gmane.org/d9f66aa509623343b6a9a3d4502d5a52112b0...@shsmsx101.ccr.corp.intel.com > > Shrug it off as an unstable test result. Both mine and Jesse's patch > really only change the logic we use to WARN about interrupt state. We > don't use pm._irqs_disabled for anything else at all.
Okay, so this is a PITA to review, but at least ironlake_enable_display_irq will behave differently during drm_irq_install because of this patch. Jani. > Which means that black screen is at most a timing issue. Or the baseline > kernels don't perfectly match (the new warning in Jesse's patch is a bit > an indicator for that). > -Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
