On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 07:38:43PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 06:27:03PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > 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? > > > > Okay, I started on this, and I somewhat agree. How about: > > u8 cur_freq; /* Current frequency (cached, may not == HW) */ > u8 min_freq_softlimit; /* Minimum frequency permitted by the driver */ > u8 max_freq_softlimit; /* Max frequency permitted by the driver */ > u8 max_freq; /* Maximum frequency, RP0 if not overclocking */ > u8 min_freq; /* AKA RPn. Minimum frequency */ > u8 efficient_freq; /* AKA RPe. Pre-determined balanced frequency */ > u8 rp1_freq; /* "less than" RP0 power/freqency */ > u8 rp0_freq; /* Non-overclocked max frequency. */ Yes. If we include a couple of comments where we read from the cap register to reference the spec names, I like it a lot. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
