On Friday 27 March 2015 03:13 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 06:32:15PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
2015-03-19 11:14 GMT-03:00 <deepak.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
From: Deepak S <deepak.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
After feedback from the hardware team, now we set the GPU min/idel freq to RPe.
Punit is expecting us to operate GPU between Rpe & Rp0. If we drop the
frequency to RPn, punit is failing to change the input voltage to
minimum :(
Since this is far away from the obvious, I am imagining some
programmer from the future looking at this code and imagining
min_freq_softlimit was "accidentally" set to RPe instead of RPn. Can't
we add a comment in the code - not just the commit message -, to make
it clear that we're doing this since the punit is weird?
Another thing which I noticed is that your patch title mentions CHV,
but your patch touches the VLV function instead of the CHV one. This
also leads me to think that maybe the power measurement experiments
you did were done using the non-patched CHV code... Can you please
clarify your intentions here? And also maybe redo the power
measurements if needed.
Also, I think we need at least an ACK from Chris here, especially
since he was already discussing the previous version of this patch.
If you include a comment like (and note we want to set
dev_priv->rps.min_freq not dev_priv->rps.min_freq_softlimit):
/* PUnit validated range is only [RPe, RP0] */
dev_priv->rps.min_freq = dev_priv->rps.efficient_freq;
and make sure that is set before we derive dev_priv->rps.idle_freq.
You can have my
Acked-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-Chris
Thanks Chris. I will address comments & rebase the patch.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
