On Wednesday 16 April 2014 07:02 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:36:55PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:41:15PM +0530, deepak.s@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Deepak S <deepak.s@xxxxxxxxx>
In BDW, Apart from unmasking up/down threshold interrupts. we need
to umask bit 32 of PM_INTRMASK to route interrupts to target via Display
Interface.
Signed-off-by: Deepak S <deepak.s@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 1 +
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 2 ++
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
index c2dd436..8c7841b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
@@ -5105,6 +5105,7 @@ enum punit_power_well {
#define GEN6_RC6p_THRESHOLD 0xA0BC
#define GEN6_RC6pp_THRESHOLD 0xA0C0
#define GEN6_PMINTRMSK 0xA168
+#define GEN8_PMINTR_REDIRECT_TO_NON_DISP 0x7FFFFFFF
Defining is as (1<<31) would make more sense to me.
#define GEN6_PMISR 0x44020
#define GEN6_PMIMR 0x44024 /* rps_lock */
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
index 27b64ab..6b123cd 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
@@ -3066,6 +3066,8 @@ static u32 gen6_rps_pm_mask(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u8 val)
if (INTEL_INFO(dev_priv->dev)->gen <= 7 && !IS_HASWELL(dev_priv->dev))
mask |= GEN6_PM_RP_UP_EI_EXPIRED;
+ mask &= GEN8_PMINTR_REDIRECT_TO_NON_DISP;
+
return ~mask;
Oh and just noticed this doesn't actually do anything.
& must come after ~ to get the expected result.
}
--
1.8.5.2
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
Thanks for review
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
