From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Wilson Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] drm/i915: drop polled waits from i915_wait_request Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 10:29:35 +0100 Message-ID: <1335000600_11229@CP5-2952> References: <1334971412-4826-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net> <1334971412-4826-5-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from fireflyinternet.com (smtp.fireflyinternet.com [109.228.6.236]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C959C9E843 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2012 02:30:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1334971412-4826-5-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org To: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: Ben Widawsky , Ben Widawsky List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 18:23:26 -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > The only time irq_get should fail is during unload or suspend. Both of > these points should try to quiesce the GPU before disabling interrupts > and so the atomic polling should never occur. > > This was recommended by Chris Wilson as a way of reducing added > complexity to the polled wait which I introduced in an RFC patch. > > 09:57 < ickle_> it's only there as a fudge for waiting after irqs > after uninstalled during s&r, we aren't actually meant to hit it > 09:57 < ickle_> so maybe we should just kill the code there and fix the breakage > > Cc: Chris Wilson > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky > --- > + if (WARN_ON(!ring->irq_get(ring))) > + return -EBUSY; I think this is now a -ENODEV; :) -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre