[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 09/21] drm/i915/slpc: Setup rps frequency values during SLPC init

[Chris Wilson]

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 06:10:53PM -0700, tom.orourke at intel.com wrote:
> From: Tom O'Rourke <Tom.O'Rourke at intel.com>
> 
> v2: Add mutex lock/unlock
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tom O'Rourke <Tom.O'Rourke at intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h  | 1 +
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c   | 2 +-
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_slpc.c | 5 +++++
>  3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> index 47e538a..006a8c7 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> @@ -1612,6 +1612,7 @@ void intel_init_clock_gating_hooks(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
>  void intel_pm_setup(struct drm_device *dev);
>  void intel_gpu_ips_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
>  void intel_gpu_ips_teardown(void);
> +void gen6_init_rps_frequencies(struct drm_device *dev);

??? You appear to be exporting a private gen-specific routine.

Why? You haven't explained why!

>From the looks of it you have a bootstrap ordering issue.

Why did you choose to do this? Why didn't you choose to export a more
general setup routine? Why couldn't you use an existing setup point? Why
couldn't we reorder as required?
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre