On 11/2/2017 8:25 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
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
Ah. right. Will move later.
Thanks,
Sagar
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
