On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 09:44:59AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > The issue I have with the current patch is that it looks a bit like > duct-tape since the point where we drop the forcewake references seems to > lack justification. The write to MBCTL itself will temporarily wake up the > chip, so just wrapping that up in with forcewake is very likely not good > enough. So I fear that we'll only hold forcewake long enough on most > systems and still have a bunch of oddball broken systems out there. > > Holding forcewake otoh until we've fully set up rps/rc6 makes imo tons of > sense, hence why I've brought up the idea. Same reasoning applies to > extending the w/a to all systems supporting rc6.
In which case disable rc6 at the start of init gating and only enable it at the end of the deferred task. That I think will better test your hypothesis and make the transistion steps clearer. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
