On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:55:58 -0400 Adam Jackson <ajax at redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 14:32 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > > We need force wake, just not for any parts I've tested yet (the early > > ones had the Punit disabled). > > > > This code adheres to the spec, but I'll need a part with the Punit > > enabled in order to test & verify. Until then we can leave it disabled. > > Can we consider Gunit and Punit to be roughly the analogues of GPU and > PCH? Just trying to make sure I know what all the nouns mean. No it's really a sub-component, smaller than either of those. It's responsible for binding together the GT core, the display, and the memory interface. It exposes some regs in the PCI BAR (rudely shoving aside the display ones) for doing things like forcewake, turbo, and tlb flushing, along with top level interrupt handling. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/attachments/20120321/491de884/attachment.pgp>
