On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:14:51 -0500
Sean Paul wrote:
> This patch replaces the locking from the downclock routines with an assert
> to ensure the registers are indeed unlocked. Without this patch, pre-SNB
> devices would lock the registers when downclocking which would cause a
> WARNING on suspend
This patch replaces the locking from the downclock routines with an assert
to ensure the registers are indeed unlocked. Without this patch, pre-SNB
devices would lock the registers when downclocking which would cause a
WARNING on suspend/resume with downclocking enabled.
Note: To hit this bug, you
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:13:02AM -0500, Sean Paul wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:08 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 05:31:30PM -0500, Sean Paul wrote:
> >> This patch removes the locking from the downclock routines since we are no
> >> longer locking the registers at all
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:08 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 05:31:30PM -0500, Sean Paul wrote:
>> This patch removes the locking from the downclock routines since we are no
>> longer locking the registers at all. See ed10fca9 for the original commit
>> changing this philosophy.
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 05:31:30PM -0500, Sean Paul wrote:
> This patch removes the locking from the downclock routines since we are no
> longer locking the registers at all. See ed10fca9 for the original commit
> changing this philosophy.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul
I've thought this was due t
This patch removes the locking from the downclock routines since we are no
longer locking the registers at all. See ed10fca9 for the original commit
changing this philosophy.
Signed-off-by: Sean Paul
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 14 --
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+)