Re: [PATCH 4/9] drm/i915: move all rps state into dev_priv->rps

From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] drm/i915: move all rps state into dev_priv->rps
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:26:03 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120725212603.GG5396@phenom.ffwll.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120725122500.6723f67f@bwidawsk.net>

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:25:00PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 23:33:45 +0200
> Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> 
> > This way it's easier so see what belongs together, and what is used
> > by the ilk ips code. Also add some comments that explain the locking.
> > 
> > v2: Missed one place that the dev_priv->ips change caught ...
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> Reviewed-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
> With a few comments below
> 
> > +	/* gen6+ rps state */
> > +	struct {
> > +		struct work_struct work;
> > +		u32 pm_iir;
> > +		/* lock - irqsave spinlock that protectects the work_struct and
> > +		 * pm_iir. */
> > +		spinlock_t lock;
> > +
> > +		/* The below variables an all the rps hw state are protected by
> > +		 * dev->struct mutext. */
> > +		u8 cur_delay;
> > +		u8 min_delay;
> > +		u8 max_delay;
> > +	} rps;
> > +
> >  
> >  	u8 cur_delay;
> >  	u8 min_delay;
> 
> Could you add the reason for adding new cur/min/max delays to the commit
> message? From just this hunk it would seem we'd want to remove the old
> cur/min/max.

I'll add a comment that (cur|min|max)_delay need to be duplicated, because
they're also used by the ips code when applying the patch.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Mail: daniel@ffwll.ch
Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48