On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 19:31:08 +0530
deepak.s@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Deepak S <deepak.s@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> When current delay is already at max delay, Let's disable the PM UP
> THRESHOLD INTRRUPTS, so that we will not get further interrupts until
> current delay is less than max delay, Also request for the PM DOWN
> THRESHOLD INTRRUPTS to indicate the decrease in clock freq. and
> viceversa for PM DOWN THRESHOLD INTRRUPTS.
>
> v2: Use bool variables (Daniel)
>
> v3: Fix Interrupt masking bit (Deepak)
>
> Signed-off-by: Deepak S <deepak.s@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 3 +++
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 3 +++
> 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> index cc8afff..d49e674 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> @@ -943,6 +943,9 @@ struct intel_gen6_power_mgmt {
> u8 rp0_delay;
> u8 hw_max;
>
> + bool rp_up_masked;
> + bool rp_down_masked;
> +
> int last_adj;
> enum { LOW_POWER, BETWEEN, HIGH_POWER } power;
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> index 1d44c79..e87d47a 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> @@ -988,7 +988,20 @@ static void gen6_pm_rps_work(struct work_struct *work)
> adj *= 2;
> else
> adj = 1;
> - new_delay = dev_priv->rps.cur_delay + adj;
> +
> + if (dev_priv->rps.cur_delay >= dev_priv->rps.max_delay) {
> + I915_WRITE(GEN6_PMINTRMSK,
> + I915_READ(GEN6_PMINTRMSK) | 1 << 5);
> + dev_priv->rps.rp_up_masked = true;
> + new_delay = dev_priv->rps.cur_delay;
> + } else
> + new_delay = dev_priv->rps.cur_delay + adj;
> +
> + if (dev_priv->rps.rp_down_masked) {
> + I915_WRITE(GEN6_PMINTRMSK,
> + I915_READ(GEN6_PMINTRMSK) & ~(1 << 4));
> + dev_priv->rps.rp_down_masked = false;
> + }
I've looked at this too much and confused myself. It looks like the
old logic of the delay numbers being in reverse order has changed
(or maybe that was just ILK?)... so I guess the above
is ok (I was afraid we'd end up masking on the first interrupt
everytime).
So:
Reviewed-by: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks,
Jesse
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
