On 04/02/2015 11:42 AM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 11:18:49AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: >> I guess this is a lie for 8xx, but newer stuff takes care of this for >> us. >> >> References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89792 >> Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 2 ++ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c >> index 91c945b..a8f42a7 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c >> @@ -1686,6 +1686,8 @@ static int i915_sr_status(struct seq_file *m, void *unused) >> sr_enabled = I915_READ(INSTPM) & INSTPM_SELF_EN; >> else if (IS_PINEVIEW(dev)) >> sr_enabled = I915_READ(DSPFW3) & PINEVIEW_SELF_REFRESH_EN; >> + else >> + sr_enabled = true; /* other platforms don't need enabling */ > > Not true actually. > > The line between maxfifo and SR is a blurry one. We treat them as the > same thing. So I think this should just read out whatever registers > we set up in intel_set_memory_cxsr(). > > On ILK+ it should actually check if LP1+ watermarks are enabled or not. > And I can't recall enough details on SKL right now to have an idea what > should be done there. > > That's all assuming we want this file to be at least somewhat useful. > I think the other good option is to just remove the file entirely and > depend on the new intel_watermark tool I wrote recently. Yeah, that might be a better option. And beyond just this we want SR residency anyway, so finding the debug regs for that and making a tool is a better long term solution. Jesse _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
