Quoting Sagar Arun Kamble (2017-11-02 14:35:17) > > > On 11/2/2017 6:12 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > > GT powersaving is tightly coupled to the request infrastructure. To > > avoid complications with the order of initialisation in the next patch > > (where we want to send requests to hw during GEM init) move the > > powersaving initialisation into the purview of i915_gem_init(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 7 ++++++- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 2 -- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 2 -- > > 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > index 9470ba0c1930..e36a3a840552 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > @@ -5017,6 +5017,12 @@ int i915_gem_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > > goto out_unlock; > > > > ret = i915_gem_init_hw(dev_priv); > > + if (ret) > > + goto out_unlock; > > + > > + intel_init_gt_powersave(dev_priv); > Can this be moved before gem_init_hw. That way SLPC can get the initial > platform RP configuration during uc_init. Not at this point in the series, I would argue. Once we remove intel_autoenable_gt_powersave(), it looks free to be moved before i915_gem_init(). Or we split out the autoenable to here (or just after) and then remove it. Or you just move init_gt_powersave() a bit earlier in a jiffie. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
