Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Hold irq uncore.lock when initialising fw_domains

2016-07-04 Thread Mika Kuoppala
Chris Wilson writes: > Acquiring the forcewake domain asserts that it is in an atomic section > (as we always expect to under the uncore.lock). This true expect for > initialising the domains on Ivybridge, and so we generate a warning. > Wrap the manual usage of fw_domains inside the spin_lock. >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Hold irq uncore.lock when initialising fw_domains

2016-07-04 Thread Chris Wilson
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 10:06:14AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 03/07/16 18:29, Chris Wilson wrote: > >Acquiring the forcewake domain asserts that it is in an atomic section > >(as we always expect to under the uncore.lock). This true expect for > >initialising the domains on Ivybridge, and

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Hold irq uncore.lock when initialising fw_domains

2016-07-04 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 03/07/16 18:29, Chris Wilson wrote: Acquiring the forcewake domain asserts that it is in an atomic section (as we always expect to under the uncore.lock). This true expect for initialising the domains on Ivybridge, and so we generate a warning. Wrap the manual usage of fw_domains inside the s

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Hold irq uncore.lock when initialising fw_domains

2016-07-03 Thread Chris Wilson
Acquiring the forcewake domain asserts that it is in an atomic section (as we always expect to under the uncore.lock). This true expect for initialising the domains on Ivybridge, and so we generate a warning. Wrap the manual usage of fw_domains inside the spin_lock. Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson Cc