[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Bring GPU Freq to min while suspending.

[Daniel Vetter]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 08:53:24AM +0530, Deepak S wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday 18 June 2014 03:47 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 05:30:53AM +0530, deepak.s at linux.intel.com wrote:
> >>From: Deepak S <deepak.s at linux.intel.com>
> >>
> >>We might be leaving the GPU Frequency (and thus vnn) high during the suspend.
> >>Flush the delayed work queue should take care of this.
> >>
> >>v2: Fixed typo in commit message (Deepak)
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Deepak S <deepak.s at linux.intel.com>
> >>---
> >>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 2 +-
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> >>index 7f643db..8d5ae82 100644
> >>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> >>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> >>@@ -4541,7 +4541,7 @@ i915_gem_suspend(struct drm_device *dev)
> >>  	del_timer_sync(&dev_priv->gpu_error.hangcheck_timer);
> >>  	cancel_delayed_work_sync(&dev_priv->mm.retire_work);
> >>-	cancel_delayed_work_sync(&dev_priv->mm.idle_work);
> >>+	flush_delayed_work(&dev_priv->mm.idle_work);
> >Shouldn't we do that in suspend_gt_powersave instead? Also if we cancel
> >the retire work the idle work won't necessarily get armed and we might
> >miss the window. Just forcing the gt to the lowest freq in
> >suspend_gt_powersave should be more reliable.
> >-Daniel
> 
> Since we a calling suspend_gt_powersave after i915_gem_suspend, i added the flush in suspend.

I'm confused: So you're doing the change I've suggested or it doesn't
work? Please unconfuse me ;-)

> Yes i agree forcing the gt freq us more reliable

So new patch or not?
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch