2013/7/30 Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 05:48:23PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
>> From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> If we're already allowing PC8, just don't use the IRQs, so we won't
>> need to wake from PC8. Waking up from PC8 is a slow thing, so avoid it
>> when we can.
>
> This raises the question of why we where holding the power well wake
> lock if we weren't using IRQs in the first place.
I can't understand the sentence above. Also notice that the power well
is kinda orthogonal to allowing/disallowing PC8. We need the power
well disabled to allow PC8, but we won't allow PC8 whenever the power
well is disabled. And the GMBUS/DP AUX registers are on the PCH, so
they don't get affected by the state of the power well.
> This tells me the
> intel_aux_display_runtime_get() interface is indequate, imo. It would
> need to be more expressive of why/what part of aux display runtime you
> want. You could even move the state checking there so that GMBUS could
> use the same interface:
>
> unsigned long intel_aux_display_runtime_get(dev_priv, want, need)
> {
> if (need) {
> __intel_aux_display_runtime_get();
> return need;
> }
>
> if (want) {
> if (hsw_pc8_enabled()) {
> __intel_aux_display_runtime_get();
> return want;
> }
> }
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> And pass the return value to _put for it to decide if it needs to do
> anything (also it can then select its path based on whether or not it
> holds a wakeref). Making the caller decide whether or not to act based
> on information inside pc8 looks very fragile to me, and easy to break in
> future.
Yeah, sounds like a good idea.
> -Chris
>
> --
> Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
--
Paulo Zanoni
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
