Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-11-29 11:53:41) > > On 29/11/2017 11:40, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-11-29 11:34:27) > >> > >> On 29/11/2017 11:12, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >>> I think given that DMC is strongly recommended there shouldn't be a real > >>> cost with making this unconditional. > >> > >> I don't know, not liking it on the first go. But then again I have no > >> idea how much power would that waste for use cases where DMC fw is > >> deliberately not present. > >> > >> Perhaps it would be acceptable to mark GT busy during the async CSR > >> load. Chris, any thoughts? > > > > It's tightly coupled to requests, adding in an external call seems > > troublesome. > > > > What's the reason for depending on the CSR being loaded? The old fw is > > broke no matter what, it doesn't get any more broken by us holding a > > powerwell wakeref. I think we should go for simplicity and always take > > the powerwell along with the rpm? > > It's the unknown, maybe only for me, on how much power always holding > the power well would waste for use cases where DMC firmware has been > deliberately removed. > > If I understand correctly that the Daniel's and your proposal is to just > got with HAS_CSR as the wa/ criteria, instead of fw loaded check.
If I am reading the powerwell code correctly, it already takes the dmc fw into account. I would transfer the problem to there :) i.e. we have an unconditional call from gt:mark_busy, gt:mark_idle and the powerwell code knows what needs to be done under the different circumstances. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
