Re: [PATCH] drm/xe/guc: Refresh RPe frequency while setting min frequency

["Belgaumkar, Vinay" <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>]

On 10/9/2025 12:56 PM, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2025 at 11:38:54PM +0530, Sk Anirban wrote:
>> Replace cached pc->rpe_freq with xe_guc_pc_get_rpe_freq() call to ensure
>> current RPe values are used when setting
>> SLPC_PARAM_IGNORE_EFFICIENT_FREQUENCY.
>>
>> Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/xe/kernel/-/issues/5166
>> Signed-off-by: Sk Anirban <sk.anirban@intel.com>
> Cc: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_pc.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_pc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_pc.c
>> index 3c0feb50a1e2..ea1ff96bec32 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_pc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_pc.c
>> @@ -330,7 +330,7 @@ static int pc_set_min_freq(struct xe_guc_pc *pc, u32 freq)
>>   	 * Our goal is to have the admin choices respected.
>>   	 */
>>   	pc_action_set_param(pc, SLPC_PARAM_IGNORE_EFFICIENT_FREQUENCY,
>> -			    freq < pc->rpe_freq);
>> +			    freq < xe_guc_pc_get_rpe_freq(pc));
> I believe this is correct... But wondering if we should entirely kill the
> pc->rpe_freq ?!
>
> Vinay, thoughts?

Makes sense. No point caching something that can change based on thermal 
conditions.

Thanks,

Vinay.

>
>>   
>>   	return pc_action_set_param(pc,
>>   				   SLPC_PARAM_GLOBAL_MIN_GT_UNSLICE_FREQ_MHZ,
>> -- 
>> 2.43.0
>>