Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-10-25 13:44:24) > > On 25/10/2017 10:13, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-10-25 10:06:01) > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > >> index bafe1cdd57d8..08bbceaeb9b8 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > >> @@ -3349,6 +3349,7 @@ i915_gem_idle_work_handler(struct work_struct *work) > >> > >> intel_engines_mark_idle(dev_priv); > >> i915_gem_timelines_mark_idle(dev_priv); > >> + i915_pmu_gt_idle(dev_priv); > > > > Heads up, the new trend here is to use "park". Does i915_pmu_park_gt() > > or i915_pmu_gt_park() work for you? > > Okay I did not manage to stay up to speed with the park/unpark > threads/chats. But as much as I picked up, the difference here is rather > than parking the PMU, we are notifying is GT is idle/active. Sounds like you prefer i915_pmu_gt_mark_idle(). Definitely sounds like you don't want to have "idle" as the verb here. > In the light of this, and if I got the gist right, perhaps > i915_pmu_gt_(un)parked would make sense? Hmm, liking it more after a second thought. It's growing on me. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
