I'm in favor of this revert. Although I don't have any argument in values, I always guessed that many of rc6 bugs we have on snb came from the gap between the threashold values used and documented for snb. On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 01:32:51PM -0300, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > ah... got your point... > > I just split later because Ben wanted the frequency patch as the first > one > > so I decided to let split at last patch to be really optional... > > so, you suggestion is to revert the order of this two latest patches or > the > > 3? > > Yeah, that's the idea. But since I've merged the first one already I get > minus points for inconsistency, too :( > > > I guess frequency one was already queued right? > > Yeah, frequency one is already queued. That one looked more like a real > bugfix to me, since it essentially changes what we're writing into > functional registers. Hence why I've picked it right away. > > Another patch which is still dangling around is Chris' revert of > > commit 1ee9ae3244c4789f3184c5123f3b2d7e405b3f4c > Author: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch> > Date: Wed Aug 15 10:41:45 2012 +0200 > > drm/i915: use hsw rps tuning values everywhere on gen6+ > > With the split-up hsw rps stuff that's imo something we should look into > again I think. Chris? > -Daniel > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > I just checked the code and this patch looks right for me. > > > > it doesn't add any if block... just remove them. > > > > What am I missing? > > > > > > You've added it right in the previous patch ;-) > > > > > > Which means if someone tries to understand the history of a given > > > piece of code with git blame, they now have to jump through these 2 > > > patches which change nothing and are right following each another. But > > > in the usual recursive git blame mode you don't see that (or at least > > > I don't check for that by default), so you end up reading both patches > > > to make sure you still see where the code is moving around. > > > > > > So if you want to split (and I agree that it starts to make sense), > > > pls split first, then apply hsw changes to the hsw rps code only. > > > -Daniel > > > -- > > > Daniel Vetter > > > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > > > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Rodrigo Vivi > > Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br > > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch > -- Rodrigo Vivi Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/attachments/20130326/826a1784/attachment.html>
