[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 4/4] drm/i915: creating Haswell rc6 function

[Rodrigo Vivi]

I'm in favor of this revert. Although I don't have any argument in values,
I always guessed that many of rc6 bugs we have on snb came from the gap
between the threashold values used and documented for snb.


On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 01:32:51PM -0300, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > ah... got your point...
> > I just split later because Ben wanted the frequency patch as the first
> one
> > so I decided to let split at last patch to be really optional...
> > so, you suggestion is to revert the order of this two latest patches or
> the
> > 3?
>
> Yeah, that's the idea. But since I've merged the first one already I get
> minus points for inconsistency, too :(
>
> > I guess frequency one was already queued right?
>
> Yeah, frequency one is already queued. That one looked more like a real
> bugfix to me, since it essentially changes what we're writing into
> functional registers. Hence why I've picked it right away.
>
> Another patch which is still dangling around is Chris' revert of
>
> commit 1ee9ae3244c4789f3184c5123f3b2d7e405b3f4c
> Author: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>
> Date:   Wed Aug 15 10:41:45 2012 +0200
>
>     drm/i915: use hsw rps tuning values everywhere on gen6+
>
> With the split-up hsw rps stuff that's imo something we should look into
> again I think. Chris?
> -Daniel
>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I just checked the code and this patch looks right for me.
> > > > it doesn't add any if block... just remove them.
> > > > What am I missing?
> > >
> > > You've added it right in the previous patch ;-)
> > >
> > > Which means if someone tries to understand the history of a given
> > > piece of code with git blame, they now have to jump through these 2
> > > patches which change nothing and are right following each another. But
> > > in the usual recursive git blame mode you don't see that (or at least
> > > I don't check for that by default), so you end up reading both patches
> > > to make sure you still see where the code is moving around.
> > >
> > > So if you want to split (and I agree that it starts to make sense),
> > > pls split first, then apply hsw changes to the hsw rps code only.
> > > -Daniel
> > > --
> > > Daniel Vetter
> > > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rodrigo Vivi
> > Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br
>
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
>



-- 
Rodrigo Vivi
Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/attachments/20130326/826a1784/attachment.html>