On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 2:24 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 18-07-19, 21:12, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 10:37 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I would like > > > to put this data in the GPU OPP table only. What about putting a > > > range in the GPU OPP table for the Bandwidth if it can change so much > > > for the same frequency. > > > > I don't think the range is going to work. > > Any specific reason for that ? The next sentence was literally explaining this :) Fine to debate that, but ignoring that and asking this question is kinda funny. > > If a GPU is doing purely > > computational work, it's not unreasonable for it to vote for the > > lowest bandwidth for any GPU frequency. > > I think that is fine, but if the GPU is able to find how much > bandwidth it needs why can't it just pass that value without needing > to have another OPP table for the path ? You were asking this question in the context of "can the GPU OPP just list all the range of bandwidth it might use per GPU frequency". My point is that the range would be useless because it would the entire available bandwidth range (because purely compute work might not need any bandwidth). Whereas, what the GPU's algorithm actually needs might be the list of "useful" bandwidth levels to use. Also, as we add more ICC request properties, this range idea will not scale. -Saravana
