[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 18/46] drm/i915: Markup paired operations on display power domains

[John Harrison]

On 1/7/2019 03:54, Chris Wilson wrote:
> The majority of runtime-pm operations are bounded and scoped within a
> function; these are easy to verify that the wakeref are handled
> correctly. We can employ the compiler to help us, and reduce the number
> of wakerefs tracked when debugging, by passing around cookies provided
> by the various rpm_get functions to their rpm_put counterpart. This
> makes the pairing explicit, and given the required wakeref cookie the
> compiler can verify that we pass an initialised value to the rpm_put
> (quite handy for double checking error paths).
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
> index b0cbad2e83c5..faff6cf1aaa1 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
> @@ -1364,14 +1364,14 @@ static void i915_oa_stream_destroy(struct i915_perf_stream *stream)
>   
>   	free_oa_buffer(dev_priv);
>   
> -	put_oa_config(dev_priv, stream->oa_config);
> -
>   	intel_uncore_forcewake_put(dev_priv, FORCEWAKE_ALL);
>   	intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv, stream->wakeref);
>   
>   	if (stream->ctx)
>   		oa_put_render_ctx_id(stream);
>   
> +	put_oa_config(dev_priv, stream->oa_config);
> +
>   	if (dev_priv->perf.oa.spurious_report_rs.missed) {
>   		DRM_NOTE("%d spurious OA report notices suppressed due to ratelimiting\n",
>   			 dev_priv->perf.oa.spurious_report_rs.missed);

Is this not reversing a change from patch 9/46? Is there a reason why 
the oa_config scope needs to change temporarily for some of the series? 
Or can this diff be folded down and optimised out of both patches?

John.