On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 02:46:32PM +0300, ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com wrote:
From: Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com
The new watermaek update mechanism requires interrupts to work
s/watermaek/watermark/
correctly. Because of this we need interrupts while disabling crtcs during suspend. So move the irq disable to happen a bit later.
I'm not super familiar with this code, so I might be missing something, but won't this cause us to call drm_irq_uninstall() and then potentially dev->driver->get_vblank_counter() while the pipe is disabled (which will result in get_vblank_counter() returning 0)?
Also, does it cause any problems if if our interrupt handler races with intel_disable_pipe()?
Matt
This also avoid clobbering the vblank.last count in case the vblank interrupt was already disabled earlier by the timer. In that case drm_vblank_off() will need .last to be correct so that it can update the user visible vblank counter value approapriately.
v2: Note vblank counter in commit message
Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c index 4619c9e..21554a0 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c @@ -524,7 +524,6 @@ static int i915_drm_freeze(struct drm_device *dev) return error; }
drm_irq_uninstall(dev);dev_priv->enable_hotplug_processing = false;
intel_disable_gt_powersave(dev);
@@ -541,6 +540,8 @@ static int i915_drm_freeze(struct drm_device *dev) } mutex_unlock(&dev->mode_config.mutex);
drm_irq_uninstall(dev);- intel_modeset_suspend_hw(dev); }
-- 1.8.5.5
Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx