1. 18 7月, 2013 14 次提交
  2. 16 7月, 2013 17 次提交
  3. 13 7月, 2013 4 次提交
  4. 12 7月, 2013 2 次提交
  5. 11 7月, 2013 3 次提交
    • D
      drm/i915: don't enable PM_VEBOX_CS_ERROR_INTERRUPT · c0d6a3dd
      Daniel Vetter 提交于
      The code to handle it is broken - there's simply no code to clear CS
      parser errors on gen5+. And behold, for all the other rings we also
      don't enable it!
      
      Leave the handling code itself in place just to be consistent with the
      existing mess though. And in case someone feels like fixing it all up.
      
      This has been errornously enabled in
      
      commit 12638c57
      Author: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
      Date:   Tue May 28 19:22:31 2013 -0700
      
          drm/i915: Enable vebox interrupts
      
      Cc: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
      Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
      Reviewed-by: NBen Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
      Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      c0d6a3dd
    • D
      drm/i915: unify ring irq refcounts (again) · c7113cc3
      Daniel Vetter 提交于
      With the simplified locking there's no reason any more to keep the
      refcounts seperate.
      
      v2: Readd the lost comment that ring->irq_refcount is protected by
      dev_priv->irq_lock.
      Reviewed-by: NBen Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
      Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      c7113cc3
    • D
      drm/i915: kill dev_priv->rps.lock · 59cdb63d
      Daniel Vetter 提交于
      Now that the rps interrupt locking isn't clearly separated (at elast
      conceptually) from all the other interrupt locking having a different
      lock stopped making sense: It protects much more than just the rps
      workqueue it started out with. But with the addition of VECS the
      separation started to blurr and resulted in some more complex locking
      for the ring interrupt refcount.
      
      With this we can (again) unifiy the ringbuffer irq refcounts without
      causing a massive confusion, but that's for the next patch.
      
      v2: Explain better why the rps.lock once made sense and why no longer,
      requested by Ben.
      Reviewed-by: NBen Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
      Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      59cdb63d