>At this point we've not yet computed the final new_delay. It would seem better to me to put all this code to place where we have the final new_delay. I agree we can add this after we have the final new_delay. We can add this in two places one in gen6_pm_rps_work before we call valleyview_set_rps or add this inside valleyview_set_rps Since the changes are specific to vlv. I think it is better to add it within valleyview_set_rps before requesting the freq. Thoughts? >Also I wonder if we should also mask the DOWN_TIMEOUT interrupt? I think we need to do unmasking of DOWN_TIMEOUT, Idea, here is when we hit the max_dealy we mask the UP_TIMEOUT and umask the DOWN_TIMEOUT and viceversa to make sure we enable the interrupts based on whether we are going up or down and avoid the interrupts that are not required.. -----Original Message----- From: Ville Syrjälä [mailto:ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 8:05 PM To: S, Deepak Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] drm/i915: Disable/Enable PM Intrrupts based on the current freq. On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 06:40:24PM +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) > > v4: Use existing symbolic constants in i915_reg.h (Daniel) > > 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 f888fea..e89b9f4 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 160d65d..d0d87ed 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c > @@ -993,7 +993,20 @@ 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) | GEN6_PM_RP_UP_THRESHOLD); > + 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) & ~GEN6_PM_RP_DOWN_THRESHOLD); > + dev_priv->rps.rp_down_masked = false; > + } At this point we've not yet computed the final new_delay. It would seem better to me to put all this code to place where we have the final new_delay. Also I wonder if we should also mask the DOWN_TIMEOUT interrupt? > > /* > * For better performance, jump directly @@ -1012,7 +1025,21 @@ > 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.min_delay) { > + I915_WRITE(GEN6_PMINTRMSK, > + I915_READ(GEN6_PMINTRMSK) | GEN6_PM_RP_DOWN_THRESHOLD); > + dev_priv->rps.rp_down_masked = true; > + new_delay = dev_priv->rps.cur_delay; > + } else > + new_delay = dev_priv->rps.cur_delay + adj; > + > + if (dev_priv->rps.rp_up_masked) { > + I915_WRITE(GEN6_PMINTRMSK, > + I915_READ(GEN6_PMINTRMSK) & ~GEN6_PM_RP_UP_THRESHOLD); > + dev_priv->rps.rp_up_masked = false; > + } Same comments apply. > + > } else { /* unknown event */ > new_delay = dev_priv->rps.cur_delay; > } > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c index b9b4fe4..d00a2cf 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > @@ -3613,6 +3613,9 @@ static void valleyview_enable_rps(struct drm_device *dev) > vlv_gpu_freq(dev_priv, dev_priv->rps.rpe_delay), > dev_priv->rps.rpe_delay); > > + dev_priv->rps.rp_up_masked = false; > + dev_priv->rps.rp_down_masked = false; > + > valleyview_set_rps(dev_priv->dev, dev_priv->rps.rpe_delay); > > gen6_enable_rps_interrupts(dev); > -- > 1.8.4.2 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
