From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] drm/i915: optional fewer warning patch
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 16:32:04 -0700
Message-ID: <20110409233203.GA5736@lundgren.kumite>
References: <1302284850-8274-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
	<1302381082-3167-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
	<1302381082-3167-2-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
	<1302381082-3167-3-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
	<1302381082-3167-4-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
	<1302381082-3167-5-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
	<849307$cd80vp@azsmga001.ch.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from cloud01.chad-versace.us (184-106-247-128.static.cloud-ips.com
	[184.106.247.128])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9F0B9E752
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Sat,  9 Apr 2011 16:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <849307$cd80vp@azsmga001.ch.intel.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=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: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 11:31:14PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Sat,  9 Apr 2011 13:31:22 -0700, Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net> 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.
> >  	 */
> 
> Hmm, any place where we touch registers without holding a lock, unless
> under exceptional conditions such as !SYSTEM_RUNNING, is a bug waiting to
> happen. And probably already happened. Nasty, hard to reproduce race
> conditions.

The only use I had in mind was doing a bunch of reads, or perhaps
polling on a register. I didn't have a specific case but it seemed
feasible in certain cases.

> -Chris

Ben