Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 5/8] drm/i915/perf: lock powergating configuration to default when active

On 16/08/18 08:31, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 15/08/2018 12:58, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 14/08/2018 15:59, Lionel Landwerlin wrote: Hey Tvrtko, Thanks for taking over this series. I've been talking to developers using the i915/perf interface and from their point of view, they expect the

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 5/8] drm/i915/perf: lock powergating configuration to default when active

On 15/08/2018 12:58, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 14/08/2018 15:59, Lionel Landwerlin wrote: Hey Tvrtko, Thanks for taking over this series. I've been talking to developers using the i915/perf interface and from their point of view, they expect the system to be in a stable configuration when

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 5/8] drm/i915/perf: lock powergating configuration to default when active

On 14/08/2018 15:59, Lionel Landwerlin wrote: Hey Tvrtko, Thanks for taking over this series. I've been talking to developers using the i915/perf interface and from their point of view, they expect the system to be in a stable configuration when doing measurements. One issue with this

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 5/8] drm/i915/perf: lock powergating configuration to default when active

Hey Tvrtko, Thanks for taking over this series. I've been talking to developers using the i915/perf interface and from their point of view, they expect the system to be in a stable configuration when doing measurements. One issue with this patch on Gen11 is that it will lock the system in a

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 5/8] drm/i915/perf: lock powergating configuration to default when active

From: Lionel Landwerlin If some of the contexts submitting workloads to the GPU have been configured to shutdown slices/subslices, we might loose the NOA configurations written in the NOA muxes. One possible solution to this problem is to reprogram the NOA muxes when we switch to a new context.