On Wed, 24 Apr 2013, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Our rps code relies on the interrupts being off to prevent re-arming
> of the work items at inopportune moments.
>
> Also drop the redundant cancel_work for the main rps work,
> disable_gt_powersave already takes care of that.
>
> Finally add a WARN_ON t
Our rps code relies on the interrupts being off to prevent re-arming
of the work items at inopportune moments.
Also drop the redundant cancel_work for the main rps work,
disable_gt_powersave already takes care of that.
Finally add a WARN_ON to ensure we obey that piece of ordering
constraint. Lon
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Our rps code relies on the interrupts being off to prevent re-arming
> of the work items at inopportune moments.
>
> Also drop the redundant cancel_work for the main rps work,
> disable_gt_powersave already takes care of that.
>
> Finally add a WARN_ON t
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:35:16AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:19:20AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > Our rps code relies on the interrupts being off to prevent re-arming
> > of the work items at inopportune moments.
> >
> > Also drop the redundant cancel_work for the
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:19:20AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Our rps code relies on the interrupts being off to prevent re-arming
> of the work items at inopportune moments.
>
> Also drop the redundant cancel_work for the main rps work,
> disable_gt_powersave already takes care of that.
>
> F
Our rps code relies on the interrupts being off to prevent re-arming
of the work items at inopportune moments.
Also drop the redundant cancel_work for the main rps work,
disable_gt_powersave already takes care of that.
Finally add a WARN_ON to ensure we obey that piece of ordering
constraint. Lon
