On 03/11/2015 12:46 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > 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. Yeah, that would make things a little clearer. I'd be fine with that as a patch on top, fixing up the other functions as well. Jesse _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
