Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: fix long-standing SNB regression in powerconsumption after resume

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 09:44:59AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> The issue I have with the current patch is that it looks a bit like
>> duct-tape since the point where we drop the forcewake references seems to
>> lack justification. The write to MBCTL itself will temporarily wake up the
>> chip, so just wrapping that up in with forcewake is very likely not good
>> enough. So I fear that we'll only hold forcewake long enough on most
>> systems and still have a bunch of oddball broken systems out there.
>>
>> Holding forcewake otoh until we've fully set up rps/rc6 makes imo tons of
>> sense, hence why I've brought up the idea. Same reasoning applies to
>> extending the w/a to all systems supporting rc6.
>
> In which case disable rc6 at the start of init gating and only enable it
> at the end of the deferred task. That I think will better test your
> hypothesis and make the transistion steps clearer.

Hm yeah, that would be much clearer instead of risky tricks with a
refcount which is only dropped someplace completely else.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/