[RFC,v8,2/9] drm/vblank: Use spin_(un)lock_irq() in drm_crtc_vblank_off()

Commit Message

Lyude Paul June 27, 2020, 7:46 p.m. UTC

This got me confused for a bit while looking over this code: I had been
planning on adding some blocking function calls into this function, but
seeing the irqsave/irqrestore variants of spin_(un)lock() didn't make it
very clear whether or not that would actually be safe.

So I went ahead and reviewed every single driver in the kernel that uses
this function, and they all fall into three categories:

* Driver probe code
* ->atomic_disable() callbacks
* Legacy modesetting callbacks

All of these will be guaranteed to have IRQs enabled, which means it's
perfectly safe to block here. Just to make things a little less
confusing to others in the future, let's switch over to
spin_lock_irq()/spin_unlock_irq() to make that fact a little more
obvious.

Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul <[e-mail]>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ville Syrjälä <[e-mail]>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c | 5 ++---
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
index ce5c1e1d29963..e895f5331fdb4 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
@@ -1283,13 +1283,12 @@  void drm_crtc_vblank_off(struct drm_crtc *crtc)
 	struct drm_pending_vblank_event *e, *t;
 
 	ktime_t now;
-	unsigned long irqflags;
 	u64 seq;
 
 	if (drm_WARN_ON(dev, pipe >= dev->num_crtcs))
 		return;
 
-	spin_lock_irqsave(&dev->event_lock, irqflags);
+	spin_lock_irq(&dev->event_lock);
 
 	spin_lock(&dev->vbl_lock);
 	drm_dbg_vbl(dev, "crtc %d, vblank enabled %d, inmodeset %d\n",
@@ -1325,7 +1324,7 @@  void drm_crtc_vblank_off(struct drm_crtc *crtc)
 		drm_vblank_put(dev, pipe);
 		send_vblank_event(dev, e, seq, now);
 	}
-	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->event_lock, irqflags);
+	spin_unlock_irq(&dev->event_lock);
 
 	/* Will be reset by the modeset helpers when re-enabling the crtc by
 	 * calling drm_calc_timestamping_constants(). */