On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 11:18:50AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> RC6 support cannot be simply established by looking at the static device
> HAS_RC6() flag. There are cases which disable RC6 at driver load time so
> use the status of those check when deciding whether to enumerate the rc6
> counter.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
> Reported-by: Eero T Tamminen <eero.t.tamminen@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c
> index 41651ac255fa..a75cd1db320b 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c
> @@ -476,6 +476,8 @@ engine_event_status(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
> static int
> config_status(struct drm_i915_private *i915, u64 config)
> {
> + struct intel_gt *gt = &i915->gt;
> +
> switch (config) {
> case I915_PMU_ACTUAL_FREQUENCY:
> if (IS_VALLEYVIEW(i915) || IS_CHERRYVIEW(i915))
> @@ -489,7 +491,7 @@ config_status(struct drm_i915_private *i915, u64 config)
> case I915_PMU_INTERRUPTS:
> break;
> case I915_PMU_RC6_RESIDENCY:
> - if (!HAS_RC6(i915))
> + if (!gt->rc6.supported)
Is this really going to remove any confusion?
Right now it is there but with residency 0, but after this change the event is
not there anymore so I wonder if we are not just changing to a different kind
of confusion on users.
> return -ENODEV;
would a different return help somehow?
> break;
> case I915_PMU_SOFTWARE_GT_AWAKE_TIME:
> --
> 2.27.0
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
