<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 08-05-2025 01:19, Rodrigo Vivi
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:aBu5O5odAKaxhhym@intel.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""><blockquote type="cite" style="color: #007cff;"><blockquote type="cite" style="color: #007cff;"><pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">+static int xe_pcode_fwctl_uctx_open(struct fwctl_uctx *uctx)
+{
+ struct xe_pcode_fwctl_dev *fwctl_dev =
+ container_of(uctx->fwctl, struct xe_pcode_fwctl_dev, fwctl);
+ struct xe_device *xe = fwctl_dev->xe;
+
+ xe_pm_runtime_get(xe);
</pre></blockquote><pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">Shouldn't this be in the RPC function? Why keep the device awake as
long as a the FD is open?
</pre></blockquote><pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">In general I prefer the runtime on the outer bounds to avoid funny deadlock
cases. But right, in this case here it could be inside the xe_pcode calls
itself, that is when the mmio/mailboxes accesses will really happen.</pre></pre>
</blockquote>
<p>This I will handle in separate patch. For now will do runtime on
rpc function.</p>
<p>Regards,<br>
Badal</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:aBu5O5odAKaxhhym@intel.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""><pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">
</pre></pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>