On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 05:46:37PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 06:31:40PM +0530, Praveen Paneri wrote: > > From: Deepak S <deepak.s@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Currently we update the freq before masking the interrupts, which can > > allow new interrupts to occur before the frequency has changed. These > > extra interrupts might waste some cpu cycles. This patch corrects > > this by masking interrupts prior to updating the frequency. > > Well it won't waste CPU cycles as the interrupt is also masked by the > threshold limits, but there should be no harm at all in reordering the > patch so, and it does make a certain amount of sense. Added and ... > > > Signed-off-by: Deepak S <deepak.s@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Praveen Paneri <praveen.paneri@xxxxxxxxx> > > Quibbling over the language in the changelog aside, > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> queued for -next, thanks for the patch. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
