On 9/9/2016 10:51 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
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
Will change this to make consistent.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
