[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/7] drm/i915/psr: Initialize PSR mutex even when sink is not reliable

[Rodrigo Vivi]

On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 12:25:56PM -0700, Souza, Jose wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-04-03 at 17:27 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 04:35:35PM -0700, José Roberto de Souza
> > wrote:
> > > Even when driver is reloaded and hits this scenario the PSR mutex
> > > should be initialized, otherwise reading PSR debugfs status will
> > > execute mutex_lock() over a mutex that was not initialized.
> > > 
> > > Cc: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan at intel.com>
> > > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza at intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 1 -
> > >  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > index c80bb3003a7d..a84da931c3be 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > @@ -1227,7 +1227,6 @@ void intel_psr_init(struct drm_i915_private
> > > *dev_priv)
> > >  	if (val) {
> > >  		DRM_DEBUG_KMS("PSR interruption error set\n");
> > >  		dev_priv->psr.sink_not_reliable = true;
> > > -		return;
> > 
> > There are other returns above and if debugfs hits this case maybe it
> > is worth to move the mutex initialization up instead?
> 
> 
> We have those two returns in PSR debugfs, !HAS_PSR(dev_priv) and !psr-
> >sink_support and in this cases we don't have any PSR functionality so
> not worthy to initialize anything PSR related.

oh, indeed.


Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>



> 
> > 
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > >  	/* Set link_standby x link_off defaults */
> > > -- 
> > > 2.21.0
> > >