| Message ID | 6250061.7lZMOAyebC@jkrzyszt-desk.ger.corp.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [RFC] drm/i915: Restore full symmetry in i915_driver_modeset_probe/remove | expand |
On Friday, October 18, 2019 1:43:32 PM CEST Patchwork wrote: > == Series Details == > > Series: drm/i915: Restore full symmetry in i915_driver_modeset_probe/remove > URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/68188/ > State : warning > > == Summary == > > $ dim checkpatch origin/drm-tip > 586f33cacab5 drm/i915: Restore full symmetry in i915_driver_modeset_probe/ remove > -:19: ERROR:GIT_COMMIT_ID: Please use git commit description style 'commit <12+ chars of sha1> ("<title line>")' - ie: 'commit 78dae1ac35dd ("drm/i915: Propagate "_remove" function name suffix down")' > #19: > changed meanwhile by commit 78dae1ac35dd ("drm/i915: Propagate > > total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 22 lines checked That's a false positive, I believe. checkpatch has problems with quoted commit messages that contain double quotes inside, like 'Propagate "__remove" ...' in this case. Thanks, Janusz
On Friday, October 18, 2019 2:13:18 PM CEST Patchwork wrote: > == Series Details == > > Series: drm/i915: Restore full symmetry in i915_driver_modeset_probe/remove > URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/68188/ > State : failure > > == Summary == > > CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_7127 -> Patchwork_14878 > ==================================================== > > Summary > ------- > > **FAILURE** > > Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_14878 absolutely need to be > verified manually. > > If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes > introduced in Patchwork_14878, please notify your bug team to allow them > to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI. > > External URL: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_14878/index.html > > Possible new issues > ------------------- > > Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in Patchwork_14878: > > ### IGT changes ### > > #### Possible regressions #### > > * igt@i915_selftest@live_execlists: > - fi-kbl-soraka: [PASS][1] -> [INCOMPLETE][2] > [1]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7127/fi-kbl-soraka/igt@i915_selftest@live_execlists.html > [2]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_14878/fi-kbl-soraka/igt@i915_selftest@live_execlists.html live_timeslice_queue:590 GEM_BUG_ON(execlists_active(&engine->execlists) != rq) Has nothing to do with the change, I believe. Looks like a sporadic but serious issue, false positive in this case (see below). > #### Suppressed #### > > The following results come from untrusted machines, tests, or statuses. > They do not affect the overall result. > > * igt@gem_ctx_create@basic: > - {fi-tgl-u2}: [PASS][3] -> [INCOMPLETE][4] > [3]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7127/fi-tgl-u2/igt@gem_ctx_create@basic.html > [4]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_14878/fi-tgl-u2/igt@gem_ctx_create@basic.html > > > Known issues > ------------ > > Here are the changes found in Patchwork_14878 that come from known issues: > > ### IGT changes ### > > #### Issues hit #### > > * igt@gem_mmap@basic-small-bo: > - fi-icl-u3: [PASS][5] -> [DMESG-WARN][6] ([fdo#107724]) > [5]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7127/fi-icl-u3/igt@gem_mmap@basic-small-bo.html > [6]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_14878/fi-icl-u3/igt@gem_mmap@basic-small-bo.html > > * igt@i915_selftest@live_execlists: > - fi-skl-6600u: [PASS][7] -> [INCOMPLETE][8] ([fdo#111934]) > [7]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7127/fi-skl-6600u/igt@i915_selftest@live_execlists.html > [8]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_14878/fi-skl-6600u/igt@i915_selftest@live_execlists.html The same BUG, here recognized as a known issue. > * igt@i915_selftest@live_gem_contexts: > - fi-cfl-8109u: [PASS][9] -> [DMESG-FAIL][10] ([fdo#112050 ]) > [9]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7127/fi-cfl-8109u/igt@i915_selftest@live_gem_contexts.html > [10]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_14878/fi-cfl-8109u/igt@i915_selftest@live_gem_contexts.html > > * igt@kms_chamelium@hdmi-hpd-fast: > - fi-kbl-7500u: [PASS][11] -> [FAIL][12] ([fdo#111045] / [fdo#111096]) > [11]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7127/fi-kbl-7500u/igt@kms_chamelium@hdmi-hpd-fast.html > [12]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_14878/fi-kbl-7500u/igt@kms_chamelium@hdmi-hpd-fast.html > > > #### Possible fixes #### > > * igt@gem_ringfill@basic-default-interruptible: > - fi-icl-u3: [DMESG-WARN][13] ([fdo#107724]) -> [PASS][14] +1 similar issue > [13]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7127/fi-icl-u3/igt@gem_ringfill@basic-default-interruptible.html > [14]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_14878/fi-icl-u3/igt@gem_ringfill@basic-default-interruptible.html > > * igt@i915_selftest@live_execlists: > - fi-skl-lmem: [INCOMPLETE][15] ([fdo#111934]) -> [PASS][16] > [15]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7127/fi-skl-lmem/igt@i915_selftest@live_execlists.html > [16]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_14878/fi-skl-lmem/igt@i915_selftest@live_execlists.html And here, the patch recognized as a possible fix for still the same BUG. Thanks, Janusz > * igt@i915_selftest@live_hangcheck: > - fi-icl-u2: [INCOMPLETE][17] ([fdo#107713] / [fdo#108569]) -> [PASS][18] > [17]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7127/fi-icl-u2/igt@i915_selftest@live_hangcheck.html > [18]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_14878/fi-icl-u2/igt@i915_selftest@live_hangcheck.html > - {fi-icl-guc}: [INCOMPLETE][19] ([fdo#107713] / [fdo#108569]) -> [PASS][20] > [19]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7127/fi-icl-guc/igt@i915_selftest@live_hangcheck.html > [20]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_14878/fi-icl-guc/igt@i915_selftest@live_hangcheck.html > - {fi-icl-u4}: [INCOMPLETE][21] ([fdo#107713] / [fdo#108569]) -> [PASS][22] > [21]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7127/fi-icl-u4/igt@i915_selftest@live_hangcheck.html > [22]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_14878/fi-icl-u4/igt@i915_selftest@live_hangcheck.html > > * igt@kms_busy@basic-flip-a: > - fi-kbl-soraka: [DMESG-WARN][23] ([fdo#105763]) -> [PASS][24] > [23]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7127/fi-kbl-soraka/igt@kms_busy@basic-flip-a.html > [24]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_14878/fi-kbl-soraka/igt@kms_busy@basic-flip-a.html > > > {name}: This element is suppressed. This means it is ignored when computing > the status of the difference (SUCCESS, WARNING, or FAILURE). > > [fdo#105763]: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105763 > [fdo#107713]: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107713 > [fdo#107724]: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107724 > [fdo#108569]: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108569 > [fdo#111045]: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111045 > [fdo#111096]: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111096 > [fdo#111934]: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111934 > [fdo#112050 ]: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112050 > > > Participating hosts (52 -> 44) > ------------------------------ > > Additional (1): fi-tgl-u > Missing (9): fi-ilk-m540 fi-bxt-dsi fi-hsw-4200u fi-byt-squawks fi-bsw-cyan fi-skl-6260u fi-icl-y fi-byt-clapper fi-bdw-samus > > > Build changes > ------------- > > * CI: CI-20190529 -> None > * Linux: CI_DRM_7127 -> Patchwork_14878 > > CI-20190529: 20190529 > CI_DRM_7127: b20b01f8392f688d8d73d4e6dce35a92e5898ad1 @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/linux > IGT_5232: bb5735423eaf6fdbf6b2f94ef0b8520e74eab993 @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/xorg/app/intel-gpu-tools > Patchwork_14878: 586f33cacab5b8b2a9c4cd4dafcaf3d6608b1648 @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/linux > > > == Linux commits == > > 586f33cacab5 drm/i915: Restore full symmetry in i915_driver_modeset_probe/remove > > == Logs == > > For more details see: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_14878/index.html >
On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 12:07:10 +0200, Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com> wrote: > Commit 2d6f6f359fd8 ("drm/i915: add i915_driver_modeset_remove()") > claimed removal of asymmetry in probe() and remove() calls, however, it > didn't take care of calling intel_irq_uninstall() on driver remove. > That doesn't hurt as long as we still call it from > intel_modeset_driver_remove() but in order to have full symmetry we > should call it again from i915_driver_modeset_remove(). > > Note that it's safe to call intel_irq_uninstall() twice thanks to > commit b318b82455bd ("drm/i915: Nuke drm_driver irq vfuncs"). We may > only want to mention the case we are adding in a related FIXME comment > provided by that commit. While being at it, update the name of > function mentioned as calling it out of sequence as that name has been > changed meanwhile by commit 78dae1ac35dd ("drm/i915: Propagate > "_remove" function name suffix down"). > > Suggested-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com> > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> > --- Reviewed-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> but please see below > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 2 ++ > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 8 ++++---- > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c > index dd9613e45723..4ae9bfa96290 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c > @@ -452,6 +452,8 @@ static void i915_driver_modeset_remove(struct > drm_i915_private *i915) > intel_modeset_driver_remove(i915); > + intel_irq_uninstall(i915); > + > intel_bios_driver_remove(i915); I'm wondering if this is a good location for this call as in i915_driver_modeset_probe() we call it before intel_vga_register() so likely cleanup should be done after intel_vga_unregister() it also looks that we missed to call intel_bios_driver_remove() on the error path in i915_driver_modeset_probe() but let's fix it in a separate patch > vga_switcheroo_unregister_client(pdev); > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c > index bc83f094065a..0160283860a6 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c > @@ -4515,10 +4515,10 @@ void intel_irq_uninstall(struct drm_i915_private > *dev_priv) > int irq = dev_priv->drm.pdev->irq; > /* > - * FIXME we can get called twice during driver load > - * error handling due to intel_modeset_cleanup() > - * calling us out of sequence. Would be nice if > - * it didn't do that... > + * FIXME we can get called twice during driver probe > + * error handling as well as during driver remove due to > + * intel_modeset_driver_remove() calling us out of sequence. > + * Would be nice if it didn't do that... > */ > if (!dev_priv->drm.irq_enabled) > return;
Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2019-10-18 16:52:26) > On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 12:07:10 +0200, Janusz Krzysztofik > <janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > Commit 2d6f6f359fd8 ("drm/i915: add i915_driver_modeset_remove()") > > claimed removal of asymmetry in probe() and remove() calls, however, it > > didn't take care of calling intel_irq_uninstall() on driver remove. > > That doesn't hurt as long as we still call it from > > intel_modeset_driver_remove() but in order to have full symmetry we > > should call it again from i915_driver_modeset_remove(). > > > > Note that it's safe to call intel_irq_uninstall() twice thanks to > > commit b318b82455bd ("drm/i915: Nuke drm_driver irq vfuncs"). We may > > only want to mention the case we are adding in a related FIXME comment > > provided by that commit. While being at it, update the name of > > function mentioned as calling it out of sequence as that name has been > > changed meanwhile by commit 78dae1ac35dd ("drm/i915: Propagate > > "_remove" function name suffix down"). > > > > Suggested-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com> > > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> > > --- > > Reviewed-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> > but please see below > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 2 ++ > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 8 ++++---- > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c > > index dd9613e45723..4ae9bfa96290 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c > > @@ -452,6 +452,8 @@ static void i915_driver_modeset_remove(struct > > drm_i915_private *i915) > > intel_modeset_driver_remove(i915); > > + intel_irq_uninstall(i915); > > + > > intel_bios_driver_remove(i915); > > I'm wondering if this is a good location for this call as in > i915_driver_modeset_probe() we call it before intel_vga_register() > so likely cleanup should be done after intel_vga_unregister() I thought you were complaining about the positioning of intel_irq_uninstall, but you do mean the ordering of intel_bios_* vs intel_vga_*. -Chris
On Fri, 18 Oct 2019, Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com> wrote: > Commit 2d6f6f359fd8 ("drm/i915: add i915_driver_modeset_remove()") Please look at that commit and explain to me how it impacts anything about intel_irq_uninstall(). BR, Jani. > claimed removal of asymmetry in probe() and remove() calls, however, it > didn't take care of calling intel_irq_uninstall() on driver remove. > That doesn't hurt as long as we still call it from > intel_modeset_driver_remove() but in order to have full symmetry we > should call it again from i915_driver_modeset_remove(). > > Note that it's safe to call intel_irq_uninstall() twice thanks to > commit b318b82455bd ("drm/i915: Nuke drm_driver irq vfuncs"). We may > only want to mention the case we are adding in a related FIXME comment > provided by that commit. While being at it, update the name of > function mentioned as calling it out of sequence as that name has been > changed meanwhile by commit 78dae1ac35dd ("drm/i915: Propagate > "_remove" function name suffix down"). > > Suggested-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com> > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 2 ++ > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 8 ++++---- > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c > index dd9613e45723..4ae9bfa96290 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c > @@ -452,6 +452,8 @@ static void i915_driver_modeset_remove(struct drm_i915_private *i915) > > intel_modeset_driver_remove(i915); > > + intel_irq_uninstall(i915); > + > intel_bios_driver_remove(i915); > > vga_switcheroo_unregister_client(pdev); > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c > index bc83f094065a..0160283860a6 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c > @@ -4515,10 +4515,10 @@ void intel_irq_uninstall(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > int irq = dev_priv->drm.pdev->irq; > > /* > - * FIXME we can get called twice during driver load > - * error handling due to intel_modeset_cleanup() > - * calling us out of sequence. Would be nice if > - * it didn't do that... > + * FIXME we can get called twice during driver probe > + * error handling as well as during driver remove due to > + * intel_modeset_driver_remove() calling us out of sequence. > + * Would be nice if it didn't do that... > */ > if (!dev_priv->drm.irq_enabled) > return;
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> wrote: > On Fri, 18 Oct 2019, Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> Commit 2d6f6f359fd8 ("drm/i915: add i915_driver_modeset_remove()") > > Please look at that commit and explain to me how it impacts anything > about intel_irq_uninstall(). Seriously, why was this merged already? It does not fix *anything*. It cites a commit that does not break anything. You're calling intel_irq_uninstall() *twice* for no good reason. The whole probe/remove callchains are a mess, and I'm in the process of cleaning it up properly. What good does this patch bring for the overall effort, other than another useless quirk in the call chain to take into account? Indeed, the only actual functional change it makes in the remove path is not mentioned in the commit message at all! BR, Jani. > > BR, > Jani. > > >> claimed removal of asymmetry in probe() and remove() calls, however, it >> didn't take care of calling intel_irq_uninstall() on driver remove. >> That doesn't hurt as long as we still call it from >> intel_modeset_driver_remove() but in order to have full symmetry we >> should call it again from i915_driver_modeset_remove(). >> >> Note that it's safe to call intel_irq_uninstall() twice thanks to >> commit b318b82455bd ("drm/i915: Nuke drm_driver irq vfuncs"). We may >> only want to mention the case we are adding in a related FIXME comment >> provided by that commit. While being at it, update the name of >> function mentioned as calling it out of sequence as that name has been >> changed meanwhile by commit 78dae1ac35dd ("drm/i915: Propagate >> "_remove" function name suffix down"). >> >> Suggested-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> >> Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com> >> Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 2 ++ >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 8 ++++---- >> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c >> index dd9613e45723..4ae9bfa96290 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c >> @@ -452,6 +452,8 @@ static void i915_driver_modeset_remove(struct drm_i915_private *i915) >> >> intel_modeset_driver_remove(i915); >> >> + intel_irq_uninstall(i915); >> + >> intel_bios_driver_remove(i915); >> >> vga_switcheroo_unregister_client(pdev); >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c >> index bc83f094065a..0160283860a6 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c >> @@ -4515,10 +4515,10 @@ void intel_irq_uninstall(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) >> int irq = dev_priv->drm.pdev->irq; >> >> /* >> - * FIXME we can get called twice during driver load >> - * error handling due to intel_modeset_cleanup() >> - * calling us out of sequence. Would be nice if >> - * it didn't do that... >> + * FIXME we can get called twice during driver probe >> + * error handling as well as during driver remove due to >> + * intel_modeset_driver_remove() calling us out of sequence. >> + * Would be nice if it didn't do that... >> */ >> if (!dev_priv->drm.irq_enabled) >> return;
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Oct 2019, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 18 Oct 2019, Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com> wrote: >>> Commit 2d6f6f359fd8 ("drm/i915: add i915_driver_modeset_remove()") >> >> Please look at that commit and explain to me how it impacts anything >> about intel_irq_uninstall(). > > Seriously, why was this merged already? It does not fix *anything*. It > cites a commit that does not break anything. And for crying out loud, merged without passing CI results. > > You're calling intel_irq_uninstall() *twice* for no good reason. > > The whole probe/remove callchains are a mess, and I'm in the process of > cleaning it up properly. What good does this patch bring for the overall > effort, other than another useless quirk in the call chain to take into > account? Indeed, the only actual functional change it makes in the > remove path is not mentioned in the commit message at all! > > > BR, > Jani. > > >> >> BR, >> Jani. >> >> >>> claimed removal of asymmetry in probe() and remove() calls, however, it >>> didn't take care of calling intel_irq_uninstall() on driver remove. >>> That doesn't hurt as long as we still call it from >>> intel_modeset_driver_remove() but in order to have full symmetry we >>> should call it again from i915_driver_modeset_remove(). >>> >>> Note that it's safe to call intel_irq_uninstall() twice thanks to >>> commit b318b82455bd ("drm/i915: Nuke drm_driver irq vfuncs"). We may >>> only want to mention the case we are adding in a related FIXME comment >>> provided by that commit. While being at it, update the name of >>> function mentioned as calling it out of sequence as that name has been >>> changed meanwhile by commit 78dae1ac35dd ("drm/i915: Propagate >>> "_remove" function name suffix down"). >>> >>> Suggested-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com> >>> Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 2 ++ >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 8 ++++---- >>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c >>> index dd9613e45723..4ae9bfa96290 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c >>> @@ -452,6 +452,8 @@ static void i915_driver_modeset_remove(struct drm_i915_private *i915) >>> >>> intel_modeset_driver_remove(i915); >>> >>> + intel_irq_uninstall(i915); >>> + >>> intel_bios_driver_remove(i915); >>> >>> vga_switcheroo_unregister_client(pdev); >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c >>> index bc83f094065a..0160283860a6 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c >>> @@ -4515,10 +4515,10 @@ void intel_irq_uninstall(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) >>> int irq = dev_priv->drm.pdev->irq; >>> >>> /* >>> - * FIXME we can get called twice during driver load >>> - * error handling due to intel_modeset_cleanup() >>> - * calling us out of sequence. Would be nice if >>> - * it didn't do that... >>> + * FIXME we can get called twice during driver probe >>> + * error handling as well as during driver remove due to >>> + * intel_modeset_driver_remove() calling us out of sequence. >>> + * Would be nice if it didn't do that... >>> */ >>> if (!dev_priv->drm.irq_enabled) >>> return;
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c index dd9613e45723..4ae9bfa96290 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c @@ -452,6 +452,8 @@ static void i915_driver_modeset_remove(struct drm_i915_private *i915) intel_modeset_driver_remove(i915); + intel_irq_uninstall(i915); + intel_bios_driver_remove(i915); vga_switcheroo_unregister_client(pdev); diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c index bc83f094065a..0160283860a6 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c @@ -4515,10 +4515,10 @@ void intel_irq_uninstall(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) int irq = dev_priv->drm.pdev->irq; /* - * FIXME we can get called twice during driver load - * error handling due to intel_modeset_cleanup() - * calling us out of sequence. Would be nice if - * it didn't do that... + * FIXME we can get called twice during driver probe + * error handling as well as during driver remove due to + * intel_modeset_driver_remove() calling us out of sequence. + * Would be nice if it didn't do that... */ if (!dev_priv->drm.irq_enabled) return;
Commit 2d6f6f359fd8 ("drm/i915: add i915_driver_modeset_remove()") claimed removal of asymmetry in probe() and remove() calls, however, it didn't take care of calling intel_irq_uninstall() on driver remove. That doesn't hurt as long as we still call it from intel_modeset_driver_remove() but in order to have full symmetry we should call it again from i915_driver_modeset_remove(). Note that it's safe to call intel_irq_uninstall() twice thanks to commit b318b82455bd ("drm/i915: Nuke drm_driver irq vfuncs"). We may only want to mention the case we are adding in a related FIXME comment provided by that commit. While being at it, update the name of function mentioned as calling it out of sequence as that name has been changed meanwhile by commit 78dae1ac35dd ("drm/i915: Propagate "_remove" function name suffix down"). Suggested-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com> Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 2 ++ drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 8 ++++---- 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)