On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 09:44:59AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> The issue I have with the current patch is that it looks a bit like >> duct-tape since the point where we drop the forcewake references seems to >> lack justification. The write to MBCTL itself will temporarily wake up the >> chip, so just wrapping that up in with forcewake is very likely not good >> enough. So I fear that we'll only hold forcewake long enough on most >> systems and still have a bunch of oddball broken systems out there. >> >> Holding forcewake otoh until we've fully set up rps/rc6 makes imo tons of >> sense, hence why I've brought up the idea. Same reasoning applies to >> extending the w/a to all systems supporting rc6. > > In which case disable rc6 at the start of init gating and only enable it > at the end of the deferred task. That I think will better test your > hypothesis and make the transistion steps clearer. Hm yeah, that would be much clearer instead of risky tricks with a refcount which is only dropped someplace completely else. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
