[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/6] drm/i915: Move GT powersaving init to i915_gem_init()

[Sagar Arun Kamble]

On 11/2/2017 8:25 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Sagar Arun Kamble (2017-11-02 14:35:17)
>>
>> On 11/2/2017 6:12 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> GT powersaving is tightly coupled to the request infrastructure. To
>>> avoid complications with the order of initialisation in the next patch
>>> (where we want to send requests to hw during GEM init) move the
>>> powersaving initialisation into the purview of i915_gem_init().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c      | 7 ++++++-
>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 2 --
>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c      | 2 --
>>>    3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
>>> index 9470ba0c1930..e36a3a840552 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
>>> @@ -5017,6 +5017,12 @@ int i915_gem_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>>>                goto out_unlock;
>>>    
>>>        ret = i915_gem_init_hw(dev_priv);
>>> +     if (ret)
>>> +             goto out_unlock;
>>> +
>>> +     intel_init_gt_powersave(dev_priv);
>> Can this be moved before gem_init_hw. That way SLPC can get the initial
>> platform RP configuration during uc_init.
> Not at this point in the series, I would argue. Once we remove
> intel_autoenable_gt_powersave(), it looks free to be moved before
> i915_gem_init().
>
> Or we split out the autoenable to here (or just after) and then remove
> it. Or you just move init_gt_powersave() a bit earlier in a jiffie.
> -Chris
Ah. right. Will move later.

Thanks,
Sagar