On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 06:21:30PM +0530, Sagar Arun Kamble wrote:
> From: Tom O'Rourke <Tom.O'Rourke@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> When SLPC is controlling requested frequency, the rps.cur_freq
> value is not used to make the frequency request.
>
> Requested frequency from register RPNSWREQ has the value
> most recently requested by SLPC firmware. Adding new sysfs
> interface gt_req_freq_mhz to know this value.
> SLPC requested value needs to be made available to i915 without
> reading RPNSWREQ.
>
> v1: Replace HAS_SLPC with intel_slpc_active (Paulo)
> Avoid magic numbers (Nick)
> Use a function for repeated code (Jon)
>
> v2: Add "SLPC Active" to i915_frequency_info output and
> don't update cur_freq as it is driver internal request. (Chris)
>
> v3: Removing sysfs interface gt_req_freq_mhz out of this patch
> for proper division of functionality. (Sagar)
>
> v4: idle_freq, boost_freq are also not used with SLPC.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tom O'Rourke <Tom.O'Rourke@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++------
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_sysfs.c | 3 +++
> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> index 02b627e..71bce32 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> @@ -1083,6 +1083,9 @@ static int i915_frequency_info(struct seq_file *m, void *unused)
>
> intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
>
> + if (intel_slpc_active(dev_priv))
> + seq_puts(m, "SLPC Active\n");
> +
> if (IS_GEN5(dev_priv)) {
> u16 rgvswctl = I915_READ16(MEMSWCTL);
> u16 rgvstat = I915_READ16(MEMSTAT_ILK);
> @@ -1250,15 +1253,21 @@ static int i915_frequency_info(struct seq_file *m, void *unused)
> seq_printf(m, "Max overclocked frequency: %dMHz\n",
> intel_gpu_freq(dev_priv, dev_priv->rps.max_freq));
>
> - seq_printf(m, "Current freq: %d MHz\n",
> - intel_gpu_freq(dev_priv, dev_priv->rps.cur_freq));
> + if (!intel_slpc_active(dev_priv)) {
Just keep printing them, we have the banner upfront, and being able to
track and compare internal values vs hw state is still important. (And
the ordering was fairly intentional.)
> + seq_printf(m, "Current freq: %d MHz\n",
> + intel_gpu_freq(dev_priv,
> + dev_priv->rps.cur_freq));
> + seq_printf(m, "Idle freq: %d MHz\n",
> + intel_gpu_freq(dev_priv,
> + dev_priv->rps.idle_freq));
> + seq_printf(m, "Boost freq: %d MHz\n",
> + intel_gpu_freq(dev_priv,
> + dev_priv->rps.boost_freq));
> + }
> +
> seq_printf(m, "Actual freq: %d MHz\n", cagf);
> - seq_printf(m, "Idle freq: %d MHz\n",
> - intel_gpu_freq(dev_priv, dev_priv->rps.idle_freq));
> seq_printf(m, "Min freq: %d MHz\n",
> intel_gpu_freq(dev_priv, dev_priv->rps.min_freq));
> - seq_printf(m, "Boost freq: %d MHz\n",
> - intel_gpu_freq(dev_priv, dev_priv->rps.boost_freq));
> seq_printf(m, "Max freq: %d MHz\n",
> intel_gpu_freq(dev_priv, dev_priv->rps.max_freq));
> seq_printf(m,
> @@ -2315,6 +2324,9 @@ static int i915_rps_boost_info(struct seq_file *m, void *data)
> struct drm_device *dev = &dev_priv->drm;
> struct drm_file *file;
>
> + if (intel_slpc_active(dev_priv))
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> seq_printf(m, "RPS enabled? %d\n", dev_priv->rps.enabled);
> seq_printf(m, "GPU busy? %s [%x]\n",
> yesno(dev_priv->gt.awake), dev_priv->gt.active_engines);
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_sysfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_sysfs.c
> index 1012eee..020d64e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_sysfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_sysfs.c
> @@ -299,6 +299,9 @@ static ssize_t gt_cur_freq_mhz_show(struct device *kdev,
> {
> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = kdev_minor_to_i915(kdev);
>
> + if (intel_slpc_active(dev_priv))
> + return -ENODEV;
Ok, I had a thought that we allowed the user to directly set cur freq,
but we don't.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
