[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 6/6] drm/i915: GEN6_RP_INTERRUPT_LIMITS doesn't seem to exist on VLV

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:06:47PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 19:21:06 +0300
> ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com wrote:
> 
> > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > 
> > I can't find GEN6_RP_INTERRUPT_LIMITS (0xA014) anywhere in VLV docs.
> > Reading it always returns zero from what I can tell, and eliminating
> > it doesn't seem to make any difference to the behaviour of the system.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 8 ++------
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > index 8b7475e..96cfb3e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > @@ -3107,7 +3107,8 @@ static void vlv_update_rps_cur_delay(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> >  void valleyview_set_rps(struct drm_device *dev, u8 val)
> >  {
> >  	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> > -	u32 limits = gen6_rps_limits(dev_priv, &val);
> > +
> > +	gen6_rps_limits(dev_priv, &val);
> >  
> >  	WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&dev_priv->rps.hw_lock));
> >  	WARN_ON(val > dev_priv->rps.max_delay);
> > @@ -3126,11 +3127,6 @@ void valleyview_set_rps(struct drm_device *dev, u8 val)
> >  
> >  	vlv_punit_write(dev_priv, PUNIT_REG_GPU_FREQ_REQ, val);
> >  
> > -	/* Make sure we continue to get interrupts
> > -	 * until we hit the minimum or maximum frequencies.
> > -	 */
> > -	I915_WRITE(GEN6_RP_INTERRUPT_LIMITS, limits);
> > -
> >  	dev_priv->rps.cur_delay = val;
> >  
> >  	trace_intel_gpu_freq_change(vlv_gpu_freq(dev_priv->mem_freq, val));
> 
> I don't see it anymore either... so Reviewed-by: Jesse Barnes
> <jbarnes at virtuosugeek.org>

Thanks for patches and review, all but 4&5 merged to dinq. Like mentioned
in my other mail I'd vote to replace the logic in patches 4&5 with a
simple wait_for if it doesn't hurt performance.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch