On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 11:31:14PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 13:31:22 -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > +*
> > +* Intelligent users of the interface may do a force_wake_get() followed
> > +* by many register reads and writes, knowing that the reference count
> > +
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 13:31:22 -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> + *
> + * Intelligent users of the interface may do a force_wake_get() followed
> + * by many register reads and writes, knowing that the reference count
> + * is already incremented. So we do not want to warn on those.
This patch will likely produce much fewer warnings, but perhaps hide
some bugs in the driver. Any warnings while using this patch are
extremely likely to cause problems, while warnings without this patch
are also driver bugs, but much less likely to be causing issues. Without
this patch we may also
This patch will likely produce much fewer warnings, but perhaps hide
some bugs in the driver. I believe it's a good starting point however to
find the really serious issues first.
Goal is to hide warnings if the refcount for the forcewake "lock" is not
zero
Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky
---
drive
