DRM Error on Acer Aspire One

[Dave Airlie]

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Andrew Morton
<akpm at linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2010 08:51:05 +1000
> Dave Airlie <airlied at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Andrew Morton
>> <akpm at linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 12 May 2010 08:22:49 +1000
>> > Dave Airlie <airlied at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, 11 May 2010 12:10:01 -0700, Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 11 May 2010 19:52:31 +0100
>> >> >> Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > On Tue, 11 May 2010 11:35:55 -0400, Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> >> >> > > No, io_mapping_map_atomic_wc() cannot be used from [soft]irq context:
>> >> >> > > it hardwires use of KM_USER0. __I suggest that io_mapping_create_wc(),
>> >> >> > > io_mapping_map_atomic_wc() etc be changed so that the caller passes in the
>> >> >> > > KM_foo kmap slot index.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Argh, sorry for the noise, read the mail in the wrong order. Thanks for
>> >> >> > the review. It would be sensible to go with your simpler patch whilst
>> >> >> > io_mapping_map_atomic_wc() is improved.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> OK. __I'll be sending a bunch of fixes Linuswards in an hour or two.
>> >> >> Should I include this?
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes.
>> >> >
>> >> > Acked-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I'm not sure pushing this in at this point is a good idea, if I'm
>> >> reading it correctly we've no idea what KM_IRQ is being used for,
>> >
>> > It's used for taking kmaps from IRQ contexts.
>> >
>> >> and
>> >> this codepath is called from non-irq contexts just as much as irq
>> >> contexts.
>> >
>> > That's fine. __As long as we do a local_irq_disable(), KM_IRQ0 can be
>> > used from both irq- and non-irq contexts. __All we need to do is to
>> > ensure that some interrupt cannot come along on this CPU and corrupt
>> > the slot.
>>
>> I don't think we do that in a lot of places, and I'd rather not add
>> that in to fix this problem at this point in the release cycle, as
>> we've no idea what it might break/regress.
>
> What is "that"?  The switch to irq-protected KM_IRQ0?  That won't break
> anything.
>

disabling local cpu irqs around all these kmap mappings.

Dave.