On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 04:38:28PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > 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. Actually, having read how these new functions were used, I have further doubts that they are being used correctly. I think adding comments to the callsites should answer most of my questions, or help show the weakness in the current code. > 2014-02-28 5:44 GMT-03:00 Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > 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? I was reading the patches out of order, so hadn't seen the addition of the rpm into the workqueue. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
