On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:27:59PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On 03/05/2015 09:37 PM, akash.goel@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > + /* Leaning on the below call to gen6_set_rps to program/setup the > > + * Up/Down EI & threshold registers, as well as the RP_CONTROL, > > + * RP_INTERRUPT_LIMITS & RPNSWREQ registers */ > > + dev_priv->rps.power = HIGH_POWER; /* force a reset */ > > Are you also sure that dev_priv->rps.cur_freq != min_freq_softlimit at > this point? That's the condition for calling into the threshold update > function (maybe gen6_set_rps should check both variables though). It's a good point, but Akash has inherited that bug from me. What I think we want is removing the actual intel_set_rps() calls here (and the rest of the *_enable_rps()) and do an intel_set_rps_idle() call from the common point in the caller, where we can put all the dancing required to force the RPS initialisation. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
