On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 14:54:26 -0700
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 17:34:56 +0100
> Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > +void gen6_rps_idle(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > +{
> > + mutex_lock(&dev_priv->rps.hw_lock);
> > + if (dev_priv->info->is_valleyview)
> > + valleyview_set_rps(dev_priv->dev, dev_priv->rps.min_delay);
> > + else
> > + gen6_set_rps(dev_priv->dev, dev_priv->rps.min_delay);
> > + mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->rps.hw_lock);
> > +}
>
> Looks pretty good, but I think these should be rpe_delay instead. Not
> much point in going down to a less efficient frequency...
Oh and you can have my
Reviewed-by: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
with that change (or if you can justify the above).
Jesse
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
