On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 01:37:16PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 07:01:44PM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > The names of the struct members for RPS are stupid. Every time I need to > > do anything in this code I have to spend a significant amount of time to > > remember what it all means. By renaming the variables (and adding the > > comments) I hope to clear up the situation. Indeed doing this make some > > upcoming patches more readable. > > > > I've avoided ILK because it's possible that the naming used for Ironlake > > matches what is in the docs. I believe the ILK power docs were never > > published, and I am too lazy to dig them up. > > > > While there may be mistakes, this patch was mostly done via sed. The > > renaming of "hw_max" required a bit of interactivity. > > It lost the distinction between RPe and RPn. I am in favour of keeping > RP0, RP1, RPe, RPn for the hardware/spec values and adding the set of > soft values used for actual interaction. > -Chris > Okay, as stated before, you are correct - I need to bring back RPe/RPn distinction. I think using the mix of values (basically s/_delay/_freq) doesn't fully relize what I was hoping to achieve. I don't think there is ever a case, except when debugging where it's easier to refer to the RP mnemonic. How strongly do you feel about this one? I'd really prefer to just fix RPe/RPn. Does anyone else have an opinion on: "max_freq_hardlimit" vs. "rp0" Does anyone else want to review this one? > -- > Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
