[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 00/12] drm/i915: Separate RC6, RPS, LLC ring Frequency management

[Sagar Arun Kamble]

On 10/9/2017 8:39 PM, Imre Deak wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 09:33:09AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> Quoting Sagar Arun Kamble (2017-10-07 08:07:23)
>>> With GuC based SLPC, frequency control will be moved to GuC and Host will
>>> continue to control RC6 and LLC ring frequency setup. This needs separate
>>> handling of RPS, RC6 and LLC ring frequencies in i915 flows. We still
>>> continue use the *gt_powersave routines with separate status variables
>>> for RPS, RC6, ring frequency as pm.rps.enabled, pm.rc6.enabled and
>>> pm.llc_pstate.configured respectively in dev_priv.
>>> Post this, with SLPC changes integrated we can just skip the Host RPS path
>>> in i915 PM flows.
>>>
>>> v2: Added new patch 2. Addressed review comments. Pending review for last
>>> 3 patches and patch 2 currently.
>>>
>>> v3: Fixed checkpatch issue in patch 1. Updated patch 6 with new name for
>>> i915_runtime_pm structure variable as runtime_pm. Added new patch 7 to
>>> move hw_lock out of rps structure. Updated patch 8 to name rc6/rps/ring
>>> state as gt_pm. Updated patch 10 to change the llc pstate enable disable
>>> function names. Removed WARN_ON for pcu_lock from lower level functions
>>> in patch 11. Also addressed review comments on patch 12.
>> It looks ready to go (as in I couldn't see any problems in this series).
>> Since we are making changes a bit wider than rc6/rps internals (touching
>> pcode and runtime_pm), we could do with an ack or two from other
>> interested parties to make sure we are not digging ourselves into a hole.
> The changes look good and I haven't spotted any problem, so:
> Acked-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak at intel.com>
>
> In intel_runtime_suspend() what we want after these changes is to check
> if rc6 is enabled instead of rps, but that's a detail and can be done as
> a follow-up.
Thanks Imre. intel_runtime_suspend change you suggested is done in patch 12.
>
>> -Chris