On Tue, 2020-03-10 at 14:41 -0700, Francisco Jerez wrote: > [...] > Thanks in advance for any review feed-back and test reports. > > [PATCH 01/10] PM: QoS: Add CPU_RESPONSE_FREQUENCY global PM QoS > limit. > [PATCH 02/10] drm/i915: Adjust PM QoS response frequency based on GPU > load. > [PATCH 03/10] OPTIONAL: drm/i915: Expose PM QoS control parameters > via debugfs. > [PATCH 04/10] Revert "cpufreq: intel_pstate: Drop ->update_util from > pstate_funcs" > [PATCH 05/10] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Implement VLP controller > statistics and status calculation. > [PATCH 06/10] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Implement VLP controller target > P-state range estimation. > [PATCH 07/10] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Implement VLP controller for HWP > parts. > [PATCH 08/10] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Enable VLP controller based on > ACPI FADT profile and CPUID. > [PATCH 09/10] OPTIONAL: cpufreq: intel_pstate: Add tracing of VLP > controller status. > [PATCH 10/10] OPTIONAL: cpufreq: intel_pstate: Expose VLP controller > parameters via debugfs. > Do you have debug patch (You don't to submit as a patch), which will allow me to dynamically disable/enable all these changes? I want to compare and do some measurements. Thanks, Srinivas > [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=152221943320908&w=2 > [2] > https://github.com/curro/linux/commits/intel_pstate-vlp-v2-hwp-only > [3] https://github.com/curro/linux/commits/intel_pstate-vlp-v2 > [4] > http://people.freedesktop.org/~currojerez/intel_pstate-vlp-v2/benchmark-comparison-ICL.log > _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
