On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 02:58:08PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> > > Otherwise, a simple "cat" to the debugfs file can make the machine use > much more power than needed, and prevent it from runtime suspending. > > Related commit: > > commit 8452e1d173a16d9812422a2272c4ab0f0ba81057 > Author: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue Oct 7 17:21:26 2014 +0300 > drm/i915: Build workaround list in ring initialization > > Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Arun Siluvery <arun.siluvery@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Testcase: igt/pm_rpm/debugfs-read > Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> tbh I'm not even sure we want to do the manual forcewake get here - I915_READ will do it for us, and this is a debug interface. So no one should care about perf. Mika, is that right? If so I'd like to merge the inverse patch which drops the fw_get. -Daniel > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > index 9600285..36a4baa 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > @@ -2671,6 +2671,7 @@ static int i915_wa_registers(struct seq_file *m, void *unused) > addr, value, mask, read, ok ? "OK" : "FAIL"); > } > > + gen6_gt_force_wake_put(dev_priv, FORCEWAKE_ALL); > intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv); > mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex); > > -- > 2.1.1 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
