On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 12:26 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Andy Lutomirski (2018-02-24 00:07:23)
>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:26 PM, Rodrigo Vivi
>> wrote:
>> > From: Andy Lutomirski
>> >
>> > +
>> > + dev_priv->psr.activate_timer.expires = jiffies - 1;
>>
>> That can't possibly be
Quoting Andy Lutomirski (2018-02-24 00:07:23)
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:26 PM, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > From: Andy Lutomirski
> >
> > +
> > + dev_priv->psr.activate_timer.expires = jiffies - 1;
>
> That can't possibly be okay.
As an initialisation value, set to the previous jiffie? You
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:26 PM, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> From: Andy Lutomirski
>
> +
> + dev_priv->psr.activate_timer.expires = jiffies - 1;
That can't possibly be okay.
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.free
"Pandiyan, Dhinakaran" writes:
> On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 15:26 -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>> From: Andy Lutomirski
>>
>> The current PSR code has a two call sites that each schedule delayed
>> work to activate PSR. As far as I can tell, each call site intends
>> to keep PSR inactive for the give
On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 15:26 -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> From: Andy Lutomirski
>
> The current PSR code has a two call sites that each schedule delayed
> work to activate PSR. As far as I can tell, each call site intends
> to keep PSR inactive for the given amount of time and then allow it
> to
From: Andy Lutomirski
The current PSR code has a two call sites that each schedule delayed
work to activate PSR. As far as I can tell, each call site intends
to keep PSR inactive for the given amount of time and then allow it
to be activated.
The call sites are:
- intel_psr_enable(), which ex
