Re: [PATCH 14/49] drm/i915/bxt: add GEN8_SDEUNIT_CLOCK_GATE_DISABLE workaround

Nick Hoath
2015-03-25T14:53:38Z

On 20/03/2015 10:37, Deak, Imre wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 09:08 +0000, Nick Hoath wrote:
>> On 17/03/2015 13:06, Imre Deak wrote:
>>> On ti, 2015-03-17 at 11:35 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:39:40AM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 11 +++++++++++
>>>>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
>>>>> index 3d4a7c3..d5dd0b3 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
>>>>> @@ -96,7 +96,18 @@ static void skl_init_clock_gating(struct drm_device *dev)
>>>>>
>>>>> static void bxt_init_clock_gating(struct drm_device *dev)
>>>>> {
>>>>> + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
>>>>> +
>>>>> gen9_init_clock_gating(dev);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * FIXME:
>>>>> + * GEN8_SDEUNIT_CLOCK_GATE_DISABLE applies on A0 only.
>>>>
>>>> We have pci revid macros now. Do you have plans to roll similar ones out
>>>> for bxt?
>>>
>>> Yes. It may be that for BXT we also need to look at the PCI_REVISION_ID
>>> field besides PCI_CLASS_REVISION, I still have to figure out the exact
>>> mapping. (And also understand the meaning/difference between SOC vs. GT
>>> revision IDs).
>
> Ok, the above is red herring. PCI_REVISION_ID is just the 8 low bits of
> PCI_CLASS_REVISION, so we can reuse INTEL_REVID as-is.
>
>> I've posted a patch with the Broxton revision ID's from the specs.
>
> It looks ok, but I prefer adding them as a follow-up to this patchset.
>
>
Reviewed-by: Nick Hoath <nicholas.hoath@intel.com>