> -----Original Message----- > From: Luca Coelho <luca@xxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 5:57 PM > To: Shankar, Uma <uma.shankar@xxxxxxxxx>; Coelho, Luciano > <luciano.coelho@xxxxxxxxx>; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: intel-xe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Nikula, Jani > <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] drm/i915/display: add support for DMC wakelocks > > On Fri, 2024-04-12 at 10:30 +0000, Shankar, Uma wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Coelho, Luciano <luciano.coelho@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 3:12 PM > > > To: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Cc: intel-xe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Shankar, Uma > > > <uma.shankar@xxxxxxxxx>; ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Nikula, Jani > > > <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Subject: [PATCH v5 1/4] drm/i915/display: add support for DMC > > > wakelocks > > > > > > In order to reduce the DC5->DC2 restore time, wakelocks have been > > > introduced in DMC so the driver can tell it when registers and other > > > memory areas are going to be accessed and keep their respective blocks > awake. > > > > > > Implement this in the driver by adding the concept of DMC wakelocks. > > > When the driver needs to access memory which lies inside pre-defined > > > ranges, it will tell DMC to set the wakelock, access the memory, > > > then wait for a while and clear the wakelock. > > > > > > The wakelock state is protected in the driver with spinlocks to > > > prevent concurrency issues. > > > > Hi Luca, > > Seems you missed to add the version history. > > I've been sending the version history in the cover letter, because I don't think it > adds any information after it gets to the mainline kernel. The history is lost > anyway, so the mailing list is a better place to store it (it's unique and meaningful > there). Its matter of preference, but being part of the patch's commit message it stays with it and can be checked with a git show. Cover letter details gets lost though as it doesn't end up in the tree. > Bur as I said to someone else before, I can add it to the commit message if you > think that it's needed. Not needed Luca, it was a simple nitpick 😊. You can skip that. > > > > Anyways, changes look good to me. > > Reviewed-by: Uma Shankar <uma.shankar@xxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks a lot! > > Though you didn't review patch 3/4, the one about the module parameter. > Was that intentional or did you just miss it? I think I have reviewed and RB'ed it. The entire series is RB'ed now. Regards, Uma Shankar > -- > Cheers, > Luca.
