Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: fix comment referencing imaginary functions

From: Matthew Auld <matthew.william.auld@gmail.com>
To: Arkadiusz Hiler <arkadiusz.hiler@intel.com>
Cc: Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: fix comment referencing imaginary functions
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:29:41 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAM0jSHPjsVhutiEqzZz1nEyskS_+dNp_4KwSk2xgjb-C6ywWoQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161024112314.GA4358@ahiler-desk.igk.intel.com>

> These are untraced mmio-accessors that are only valid to be used inside
> critical sections inside IRQ handlers where forcewake is explicitly
> controlled.
>
> Think twice, and think again, before using these.
>
> Those possibly should be used between:
>
> spin_lock_irq(&dev_priv->uncore.lock);
> intel_uncore_forcewake_get();
>
> and
>
> intel_uncore_forcewake_put();
> spin_unlock_irq(&dev_priv->uncore.lock);
>
>
> Note: some registers may not need forcewake held, so
> intel_uncore_forcewake_{get,put} can be omitted.
>
> Code may be serialised by different lock, so immediate
> spin_{lock,unlock}_irq() may not be necessary.
Maybe roll that up into a new patch? Assuming Chris is happy...
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx