On 05/09/2018 16:21, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-09-05 15:22:19)
-static u32 make_rpcs(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
- struct intel_sseu *ctx_sseu)
+u32 gen8_make_rpcs(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
+ struct intel_sseu *req_sseu)
Should we retrospectively make this const?
Can do, but generally I try to avoid it kernel code since most of the
time it is way more pain than benefit.
(And anychance for a s/dev_priv/i915?)
Will check if it is doable without much noise at any of the stages.
{
const struct sseu_dev_info *sseu = &INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->sseu;
bool subslice_pg = sseu->has_subslice_pg;
- u8 slices = hweight8(ctx_sseu->slice_mask);
- u8 subslices = hweight8(ctx_sseu->subslice_mask);
+ struct intel_sseu ctx_sseu;
+ u8 slices, subslices;
u32 rpcs = 0;
+ /*
+ * If i915/perf is active, we want a stable powergating configuration
+ * on the system. The most natural configuration to take in that case
+ * is the default (i.e maximum the hardware can do).
+ */
+ if (unlikely(dev_priv->perf.oa.exclusive_stream))
+ ctx_sseu = intel_device_default_sseu(dev_priv);
+ else
+ ctx_sseu = *req_sseu;
:(
I'm not sure if I can suggest anything better, but this does feel like a
layering violation.
It makes sense which makes it only feel worse.
It used to be a helper which applied the adjustment but I wasn't happy
with how callers then had to know to call the helper and decided
handling it at the core is better in more than one way.
I think bottom line is there is fundamental interaction between the two
so some layering violation has to happen.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
