Hi Vinay,
On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 11:04:31PM -0700, Belgaumkar, Vinay wrote:
>
> On 4/17/2023 6:39 PM, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > Hi Vinay,
> >
> > Looks good, just few minor comments below,
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > @@ -267,13 +267,11 @@ static int run_test(struct intel_gt *gt, int test_type)
> > > }
> > > /*
> > > - * Set min frequency to RPn so that we can test the whole
> > > - * range of RPn-RP0. This also turns off efficient freq
> > > - * usage and makes results more predictable.
> > > + * Turn off efficient freq so RPn/RP0 ranges are obeyed
> > > */
> > > - err = slpc_set_min_freq(slpc, slpc->min_freq);
> > > + err = intel_guc_slpc_set_ignore_eff_freq(slpc, true);
> > > if (err) {
> > > - pr_err("Unable to update min freq!");
> > > + pr_err("Unable to turn off efficient freq!");
> > drm_err()? or gt_err()? As we are here we can use a proper
> > printing.
> >
> > How is this change related to the scope of this patch?
> The selftest was relying on setting min freq < RP1 to disable efficient
> freq, now that we have an interface, the test should use that (former method
> will not work). Should this be a separate patch?
I would have placed it in a separate patch. But I'm not strong
with it, up to you.
Thanks,
Andi
