From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Wilson Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Periodically sanity check power management Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 16:13:32 +0100 Message-ID: <1336058015_131406@CP5-2952> References: <1335436122-12101-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> <20120503150754.GI4983@phenom.ffwll.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from fireflyinternet.com (smtp.fireflyinternet.com [109.228.6.236]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E22C9E796 for ; Thu, 3 May 2012 08:13:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120503150754.GI4983@phenom.ffwll.local> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org To: Daniel Vetter Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Thu, 3 May 2012 17:07:54 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 11:28:42AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > This patch does have a side-effect. It removes the mark-busy for just > > moving the cursor - we don't want to increase the render clock just for > > the sprite, though we may want to bump the display frequency. I'd argue > > that we do not, and certainly don't want to take the struct_mutex here > > due to the large latencies that introduces. > > - > > - if (visible) > > - intel_mark_busy(dev, to_intel_framebuffer(crtc->fb)->obj); > > Hm, what's the reason to drop this one here? See above. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre