2014-02-28 5:44 GMT-03:00 Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 07:26:34PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: >> From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> To solve a chicken-and-egg problem. Currently when we get/put >> forcewake we also get/put runtime PM and this works fine because the >> runtime PM code doesn't need forcewake. But we're going to merge PC8 >> and runtime PM into a single feature, and the PC8 code (the LCPLL >> code) does need the forcewake, so that specific piece of code needs to >> call the _no_rpm version so it doesn't try to get runtime PM in the >> code that gets runtime PM. >> >> For now the new functions are unused, we'll use them on the patch that >> merges PC8 with runtime PM. >> >> Also notice that, so simplify things, the put() function doesn't use >> the workqueue, since the workqueue also puts runtime PM. > > Where are these routines called? The names are awful but not quite awful > enough to avoid confusion. Is it possible to hide these to a single .c? They are called on patch 09/23, inside function hsw_restore_lcpll(), from intel_display.c. I'm always open to naming suggestions. I could try gen6_gt_force_wake_get_no_runtime_pm. I could also just try to put all this code inline in the caller, but IMHO that wouldn't be an improvement over this. Another thing worth mentioning, is that at hsw_restore_lcpll we expect the forcewake count to be always zero. So we could do some other kind of trick relying on that, but I don't think it's very future-proof. > > The workqueue doesn't touch rpm here, so there routines could be > simplified if they remain in intel_uncore.c. I don't understand what you mean with the sentence above. Could you please clarify? Thanks for the review! Paulo > -Chris > > -- > Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- Paulo Zanoni _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
