On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 04:58:58AM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> void intel_fbc_invalidate(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> unsigned int frontbuffer_bits,
> enum fb_op_origin origin)
> @@ -691,6 +725,8 @@ void intel_fbc_invalidate(struct drm_i915_private
> *dev_priv,
> if (origin == ORIGIN_GTT)
> return;
>
> + mutex_lock(&dev_priv->fbc.lock);
> +
> if (dev_priv->fbc.enabled)
> fbc_bits = INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_PRIMARY(dev_priv->fbc.crtc->pipe);
> else if (dev_priv->fbc.fbc_work)
> @@ -702,7 +738,9 @@ void intel_fbc_invalidate(struct drm_i915_private
> *dev_priv,
> dev_priv->fbc.busy_bits |= (fbc_bits & frontbuffer_bits);
>
> if (dev_priv->fbc.busy_bits)
> - intel_fbc_disable(dev);
> + __intel_fbc_disable(dev);
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->fbc.lock);
> }
>
> void intel_fbc_flush(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> @@ -710,13 +748,18 @@ void intel_fbc_flush(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> {
> struct drm_device *dev = dev_priv->dev;
>
> + mutex_lock(&dev_priv->fbc.lock);
> +
> if (!dev_priv->fbc.busy_bits)
> - return;
> + goto out;
>
> dev_priv->fbc.busy_bits &= ~frontbuffer_bits;
>
> if (!dev_priv->fbc.busy_bits)
> - intel_fbc_update(dev);
> + __intel_fbc_update(dev);
> +
> +out:
> + mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->fbc.lock);
> }
These busy bits are locked higher up. In fact I want to migrate that
lock to a spinlock, which has implications here. I didn't see anything
that mandated using a mutex for fbc, right?
-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
