On Wednesday 18 March 2015 02:50 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:26:49PM +0530, Deepak S wrote:
On Friday 06 March 2015 08:36 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 27 ++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
index 9baecb79de8c..1296ce37e435 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
@@ -1150,21 +1150,20 @@ static void gen6_pm_rps_work(struct work_struct *work)
mutex_lock(&dev_priv->rps.hw_lock);
adj = dev_priv->rps.last_adj;
+ new_delay = dev_priv->rps.cur_freq;
if (pm_iir & GEN6_PM_RP_UP_THRESHOLD) {
if (adj > 0)
adj *= 2;
- else {
- /* CHV needs even encode values */
- adj = IS_CHERRYVIEW(dev_priv->dev) ? 2 : 1;
- }
- new_delay = dev_priv->rps.cur_freq + adj;
-
+ else /* CHV needs even encode values */
+ adj = IS_CHERRYVIEW(dev_priv) ? 2 : 1;
/*
* For better performance, jump directly
* to RPe if we're below it.
*/
- if (new_delay < dev_priv->rps.efficient_freq)
+ if (new_delay < dev_priv->rps.efficient_freq - adj) {
new_delay = dev_priv->rps.efficient_freq;
+ adj = 0;
+ }
} else if (pm_iir & GEN6_PM_RP_DOWN_TIMEOUT) {
if (dev_priv->rps.cur_freq > dev_priv->rps.efficient_freq)
new_delay = dev_priv->rps.efficient_freq;
@@ -1176,24 +1175,22 @@ static void gen6_pm_rps_work(struct work_struct *work)
I think we should modify adj in GEN6_PM_RP_UP_EI_EXPIRED?
if not not we might request higher freq since we add adj to new_delay before
request freq.
The best way to resolve the conflict appears to be just to reorder this
patch later after the removal of the vlv specific adj paths
-Chris
Yes, I saw the reorder patch. looks fine.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
