On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:46:16 +0100,
Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:21:08PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 20:15:50 +0100,
> > ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Ville Syrjälä
> > >
> > > Simply doing 'xset dpms force off' while playba
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:21:08PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 20:15:50 +0100,
> ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com wrote:
> >
> > From: Ville Syrjälä
> >
> > Simply doing 'xset dpms force off' while playback is active seems
> > sufficient to anger lockdep [1]. And it's of course
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 20:15:50 +0100,
ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com wrote:
>
> From: Ville Syrjälä
>
> Simply doing 'xset dpms force off' while playback is active seems
> sufficient to anger lockdep [1]. And it's of course correct that it's
> not safe to use regular spin_lock() outside the irq han
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 09:15:50PM +0200, ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com wrote:
> From: Ville Syrjälä
>
> Simply doing 'xset dpms force off' while playback is active seems
> sufficient to anger lockdep [1]. And it's of course correct that it's
> not safe to use regular spin_lock() outside the irq
From: Ville Syrjälä
Simply doing 'xset dpms force off' while playback is active seems
sufficient to anger lockdep [1]. And it's of course correct that it's
not safe to use regular spin_lock() outside the irq handler when
the irq handler also wants to acquire the same lock. I believe the
trigger c
