Re: [PATCH 4/7] drm/i915/skl: Updated the gen6_rps_limits function

From: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
To: akash.goel@intel.com
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] drm/i915/skl: Updated the gen6_rps_limits function
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:10:33 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150217151033.GC23520@strange.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150217150139.GA23520@strange.ger.corp.intel.com>

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 03:01:39PM +0000, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 02:44:56PM +0000, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 08:26:35PM +0530, akash.goel@intel.com wrote:
> > > +	if (IS_GEN9(dev_priv->dev)) {
> > > +		limits = (dev_priv->rps.max_freq_softlimit * GEN9_FREQ_SCALER) << 23;
> > > +		if (val <= dev_priv->rps.min_freq_softlimit)
> > > +			limits |= (dev_priv->rps.min_freq_softlimit * GEN9_FREQ_SCALER) << 14;
> > 
> > I believe the values here are in 16.666 Mhz, the power spec I have gives
> > examples:
> >   [31:23]=54d: No interrupt if already >=900MHz
> >   [22:14]=18d: No interrupt if already <= 300MHz
> > 
> > and 54 * 16.66.. = 900.
> 
> Right, so RP_STATE_CAP is documented using 50Mhz units, so the above is
> correct. How about unifying all values for SKL to the same units (always
> 16.66 Mhz units)? that would remove some of the confusion a bit.

Right, so going to back here, that looks correct:

Reviewed-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>

-- 
Damien
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx