1. 08 12月, 2014 1 次提交
  2. 03 12月, 2014 4 次提交
  3. 21 11月, 2014 1 次提交
  4. 20 11月, 2014 2 次提交
  5. 19 11月, 2014 1 次提交
  6. 14 11月, 2014 1 次提交
  7. 08 11月, 2014 1 次提交
  8. 07 11月, 2014 1 次提交
  9. 05 11月, 2014 2 次提交
    • P
      drm/i915: run hsw_disable_pc8() later on resume · efee833a
      Paulo Zanoni 提交于
      We want to run intel_uncore_early_sanitize() before we touch any
      registers, because on BDW, when we resume, the FPGA_DBG_RM_NOCLAIM bit
      is set, so we need to clear it - through intel_uncore_early_sanitize()
      - before we do anything else. With the current code, we don't clear
      the bit before our first register access, so we print a WARN
      complaining about an unclaimed register error.
      
      v1: Was called "drm/i915: run intel_uncore_early_sanitize earlier on
      resume"
      v2: Was called "drm/i915: run intel_uncore_early_sanitize earlier on
      resume on non-VLV"
      v3: This one, on top of the intel_resume_prepare() rework.
      v4: Rebase.
      Signed-off-by: NPaulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
      Reviewed-by: NImre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
      Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      efee833a
    • P
      drm/i915: kill intel_resume_prepare() · 1a5df187
      Paulo Zanoni 提交于
      Because, really, the abstraction is not working for us. It is nice for
      VLV, but doesn't add anything useful on SNB/HSW/BDW. We want to change
      this code due to a recently-discovered bug, but we can't seem to find
      a nice solution that repects the current abstraction. So let's kill
      intel_resume_prepare() and its friends, and add an equivalent
      implementation to both its callers.
      
      Also, look at the diffstat!
      
      v2: - Rebase.
      Signed-off-by: NPaulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
      Reviewed-by: NImre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
      Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      1a5df187
  10. 24 10月, 2014 18 次提交
  11. 03 10月, 2014 1 次提交
  12. 01 10月, 2014 2 次提交
  13. 24 9月, 2014 4 次提交
  14. 19 9月, 2014 1 次提交
    • D
      drm/i915: Clarify irq_lock locking, special cases · 13321786
      Daniel Vetter 提交于
      Grab bag for all the special cases:
      - i9xx_check_fifo_underruns is only called from crtc_enable hooks,
        i.e. process context.
      - i915_enable_asle_pipestat is only called from interrupt postinstall
        hooks. So again process context.
      - gen8_irq_power_well_post_enable is called from the runtime pm code,
        which again means process context.
      - The open-coded hpd_irq_setup loop in _thaw is also running in process
        context.
      
      So for all of them the plain _irq variant is sufficient.
      Reviewed-by: NJesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
      Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      13321786