On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 08:24:21AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> The speculation is that we can conserve more power by masking off the
> interrupts at source (PMINTRMSK) rather than filtering them by the
> up/down thresholds (RPINTLIM).
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Deepak S <deepak.s@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> index 3ad590924062..0a76e9baeca2 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> @@ -3006,6 +3006,25 @@ static void gen6_set_rps_thresholds(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u8 val)
> dev_priv->rps.last_adj = 0;
> }
>
> +static u32 gen6_rps_pm_mask(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u8 val)
> +{
> + u32 mask;
> +
> + mask = GEN6_PM_RP_DOWN_TIMEOUT;
> + if (val > dev_priv->rps.min_freq_softlimit)
> + mask |= GEN6_PM_RP_DOWN_THRESHOLD;
Actually we only need DOWN_TIMEOUT when above min freq as well.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
