On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 06:21:28PM +0530, Sagar Arun Kamble wrote:
> From: Tom O'Rourke <Tom.O'Rourke@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> When frequency requests are made by SLPC, host driver
> should not attempt to make frequency requests due to
> potential conflicts.
>
> Host-based turbo operations are already avoided when
> SLPC is used. This change covers other frequency
> requests such as from sysfs or debugfs interfaces.
>
> A later patch in this series updates sysfs/debugfs
> interfaces for setting max/min frequencies with SLPC.
>
> v1: Use intel_slpc_active instead of HAS_SLPC (Paulo)
>
> Signed-off-by: Tom O'Rourke <Tom.O'Rourke@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> index db5c4ef..d187066 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> @@ -5047,6 +5047,9 @@ void gen6_rps_boost(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>
> void intel_set_rps(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u8 val)
> {
> + if (intel_slpc_active(dev_priv))
> + return;
active not enabled?
All of the other checks in rps are enabled, right?
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
