On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 09:42:24AM -0800, O'Rourke, Tom wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 02:36:56PM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 09:19:04PM +0000, O'Rourke, Tom wrote: > > > >Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2015 7:48 PM > > > >To: Widawsky, Benjamin > > > >Cc: Intel GFX > > > >Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v2] intel_frequency: A tool to manipulate Intel > > > >GPU frequency > > > > > > > >On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 07:35:21PM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > > >> WARNING: very minimally tested > > > >> > > > >> In general you should not need this tool. It's primary purpose is for > > > >> benchmarking, and for debugging performance issues. > > > > > > > >I noticed the "it's" vs "its" on v1, but forgot to fix it. IT'S fixed locally > > > >though. > > > > > > > >> > > > >> For many kernel releases now sysfs has supported reading and writing the GPU > > > >> frequency. Therefore, this tool provides no new functionality. What it does > > > >> provide is an easy to package (for distros) tool that handles the most common > > > >> scenarios. > > > [TOR:] This is a nice tool. > > > I am concerned that this tool may be confusing RP1 frequency with RPe (Efficient) frequency. On many platforms, these are not the same thing. > > > Thanks, > > > Tom O'Rourke > > > > > > > Any platform other than BYT/CHV? > > [TOR:] I am thinking about Haswell and Broadwell. The RP1 > value can be read from RP_STATE_CAP while the RPe value can > be read from PCU mailbox. Do we need to add a sysfs entry > for RPe? > Yeah - I didn't know it existed. Let's add that. Updating the tool afterward is easy. Do we ever want Rp1? [snip] _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
