[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 10/23] drm/i915: get/put runtime PM when we get/put a power domain

[Paulo Zanoni]

2014-02-28 12:45 GMT-03:00 Imre Deak <imre.deak at intel.com>:
> On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 19:26 -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
>> From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni at intel.com>
>>
>> Any power domain will require the HW to be in PCI D0 state, so just do
>> the simple thing.
>>
>> Dear maintainer: since intel_display_power_put() and
>> intel_display_power_get() are almost identical, git-am has failed to
>> apply the patch on my local machine once: it added both chunks to
>> put(), instead of one chunk to get() and another to put(). When you
>> apply this patch to your tree, please check if it is correct.
>>
>> v2: - Add the warning above.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni at intel.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 4 ++++
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
>> index d68fee2..772aa678 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
>> @@ -5341,6 +5341,8 @@ void intel_display_power_get(struct drm_device *dev,
>>       struct i915_power_well *power_well;
>>       int i;
>>
>> +     intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
>> +
>>       power_domains = &dev_priv->power_domains;
>>
>>       mutex_lock(&power_domains->lock);
>> @@ -5372,6 +5374,8 @@ void intel_display_power_put(struct drm_device *dev,
>>               __intel_power_well_put(dev, power_well);
>>
>>       mutex_unlock(&power_domains->lock);
>> +
>> +     intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
>>  }
>
> I'd prefer to have these in the power_well->enable/disable handlers
> after applying the VLV power domains patchset. That way we would have
> the whole power well enable/disable sequence laid out in the same
> function and avoid going towards a middle-ware like approach.

As long as we get/put runtime PM for every single power domain,
including the ones that don't have a corresponding power well, I'm
fine your suggestion. But IMHO the current approach is the simplest,
and I don't see why we would want do change the order here (notice
that I didn't read the VLV docs).

>
> But this is ok, if we apply this patchset first. In that case:
> Reviewed-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak at intel.com>

Thanks for the reviews!

>
>>
>>  static struct i915_power_domains *hsw_pwr;
>



-- 
Paulo Zanoni