RE: [RFC 2/2] drm/amd/pm: Add support for reacting to platform profile notification
[AMD Official Use Only] > > > > Even if changing the heuristic for workload as Alex suggested? > > > > Yes. I think this is meant to be BIOS driven for APU platforms and AMD > APU + AMD dGPU with smartshift. > So then it sounds like if any - it would make sense only on dGPU that isn't using smart shift. > > After seeing that this is coming under ACPI, I thought the intention is > to have this driven by firmware primarily. The purpose of platform > driver itself could be to optimize for those power profiles and while > doing that it should have considered all the components in the whole > platform (assuming platform driver testing covers the behavior of these > modes on a particular platform). > > I am not sure if it's appropriate for another driver to plug-in to this > automatically and tinker an 'expected-to-be-well-tuned' setting by the > platform driver. The modes selected by another driver may or may not > match with the conditions assumed by platform driver - for ex: some > profile could mean fans running quieter with EC control and then the > profile chosen by another driver could disturb that intended setting. > The key here is that any non-APU program won't have a path to influence dGPU behavior via FW or smartshift will it? So it could be useful to respond to a limited subset of hints that can be guaranteed to mean the same. Like maybe low power mode and balanced only, but don't make changes going to high power mode? > Thanks, > Lijo > > > *From:* Lazar, Lijo > > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 10, 2021 10:05 > > *To:* Alex Deucher ; Limonciello, Mario > > > > *Cc:* amd-gfx list > > *Subject:* Re: [RFC 2/2] drm/amd/pm: Add support for reacting to > > platform profile notification > > > > [Public] > > > > I feel it's better to leave to platform vendors. For ex: for APU cases > > they may have implementations in which their BIOSes talk to PMFW and > > this might be driving something else here. > > > > Also, not sure how to handle a case like, say a laptop with Intel CPU > > and AMD dgpu. > > > > Thanks, > > Lijo > > > > > > > > *From:* amd-gfx > <mailto:amd-gfx-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org>> on behalf of Alex > > Deucher mailto:alexdeuc...@gmail.com>> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, 10 November 2021, 8:44 pm > > *To:* Limonciello, Mario > > *Cc:* amd-gfx list > > *Subject:* Re: [RFC 2/2] drm/amd/pm: Add support for reacting to > > platform profile notification > > > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 1:24 AM Mario Limonciello > > mailto:mario.limoncie...@amd.com>> wrote: > > > > > > Various drivers provide platform profile support to let users set a hint > > > in their GUI whether they want to run in a high performance, low battery > > > life or balanced configuration. > > > > > > Drivers that provide this typically work with the firmware on their > > system > > > to configure hardware. In the case of AMDGPU however, the notification > > > path doesn't come through firmware and can instead be provided directly > > > to the driver from a notification chain. > > > > > > Use the information of the newly selected profile to tweak > > > `dpm_force_performance_level` to that profile IFF the user hasn't > > manually > > > selected `manual` or any other `profile_*` options. > > > > I don't think we want to force the performance level. This interface > > forces various fixed clock configurations for debugging and profiling. > > I think what we'd want to select here is the power profile (see > > amdgpu_set_pp_power_profile_mode()). For this interface you can > > select various profiles (BOOTUP_DEFAULT, 3D_FULL_SCREEN, > POWER_SAVING, > > VIDEO, VR, COMPUTE, etc.). These still use dynamic power management, > > but they adjust the heuristics used by the GPU to select power states > > so the GPU performance ramps up/down more or less aggressively. > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello > <mailto:mario.limoncie...@amd.com>> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h | 3 + > > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/amdgpu_pm.c | 105 > +++- > > > 2 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h > > > index b85
Re: [RFC 2/2] drm/amd/pm: Add support for reacting to platform profile notification
On 11/10/2021 11:01 PM, Limonciello, Mario wrote: [Public] I don't think we want to force the performance level. This interface forces various fixed clock configurations for debugging and profiling. Ah got it. I think what we'd want to select here is the power profile (see amdgpu_set_pp_power_profile_mode()). For this interface you can select various profiles (BOOTUP_DEFAULT, 3D_FULL_SCREEN, POWER_SAVING, VIDEO, VR, COMPUTE, etc.). These still use dynamic power management, but they adjust the heuristics used by the GPU to select power states so the GPU performance ramps up/down more or less aggressively. Which profile mapping you think make sense? My guess would be: “BOOTUP_DEFAULT” for balanced “POWER_SAVING” for low-power “3D_FULL_SCREEN” for performance Since recently we removed that interface for YC, and some earlier APUs don’t do as much with it. So I wonder if this is only really valuable to do this callback for !APU. I feel it's better to leave to platform vendors. For ex: for APU cases they may have implementations in which their BIOSes talk to PMFW and this might be driving something else here. Even if changing the heuristic for workload as Alex suggested? Yes. I think this is meant to be BIOS driven for APU platforms and AMD APU + AMD dGPU with smartshift. Also, not sure how to handle a case like, say a laptop with Intel CPU and AMD dgpu. I was actually thinking this approach where there are platform profile callbacks is best because of that specifically. It would allow an Intel CPU system to have a platform profile driver implemented by the OEM, but then still notify amdgpu dGPU to tune for power saving or performance workload. After seeing that this is coming under ACPI, I thought the intention is to have this driven by firmware primarily. The purpose of platform driver itself could be to optimize for those power profiles and while doing that it should have considered all the components in the whole platform (assuming platform driver testing covers the behavior of these modes on a particular platform). I am not sure if it's appropriate for another driver to plug-in to this automatically and tinker an 'expected-to-be-well-tuned' setting by the platform driver. The modes selected by another driver may or may not match with the conditions assumed by platform driver - for ex: some profile could mean fans running quieter with EC control and then the profile chosen by another driver could disturb that intended setting. Thanks, Lijo *From:* Lazar, Lijo *Sent:* Wednesday, November 10, 2021 10:05 *To:* Alex Deucher ; Limonciello, Mario *Cc:* amd-gfx list *Subject:* Re: [RFC 2/2] drm/amd/pm: Add support for reacting to platform profile notification [Public] I feel it's better to leave to platform vendors. For ex: for APU cases they may have implementations in which their BIOSes talk to PMFW and this might be driving something else here. Also, not sure how to handle a case like, say a laptop with Intel CPU and AMD dgpu. Thanks, Lijo *From:* amd-gfx <mailto:amd-gfx-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org>> on behalf of Alex Deucher mailto:alexdeuc...@gmail.com>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 10 November 2021, 8:44 pm *To:* Limonciello, Mario *Cc:* amd-gfx list *Subject:* Re: [RFC 2/2] drm/amd/pm: Add support for reacting to platform profile notification On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 1:24 AM Mario Limonciello mailto:mario.limoncie...@amd.com>> wrote: > > Various drivers provide platform profile support to let users set a hint > in their GUI whether they want to run in a high performance, low battery > life or balanced configuration. > > Drivers that provide this typically work with the firmware on their system > to configure hardware. In the case of AMDGPU however, the notification > path doesn't come through firmware and can instead be provided directly > to the driver from a notification chain. > > Use the information of the newly selected profile to tweak > `dpm_force_performance_level` to that profile IFF the user hasn't manually > selected `manual` or any other `profile_*` options. I don't think we want to force the performance level. This interface forces various fixed clock configurations for debugging and profiling. I think what we'd want to select here is the power profile (see amdgpu_set_pp_power_profile_mode()). For this interface you can select various profiles (BOOTUP_DEFAULT, 3D_FULL_SCREEN, POWER_SAVING, VIDEO, VR, COMPUTE, etc.). These still use dynamic power management, but they adjust the heuristics used by the GPU to select power states so the GPU performance ramps up/down more or less aggressively. Alex > > Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mailto:mario.limoncie...@amd.com>> > --- > driver
Re: [RFC 2/2] drm/amd/pm: Add support for reacting to platform profile notification
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 12:31 PM Limonciello, Mario wrote: > > [Public] > > > > > I don't think we want to force the performance level. This interface > forces various fixed clock configurations for debugging and profiling. > > Ah got it. > > > > >I think what we'd want to select here is the power profile (see > amdgpu_set_pp_power_profile_mode()). For this interface you can > select various profiles (BOOTUP_DEFAULT, 3D_FULL_SCREEN, POWER_SAVING, > VIDEO, VR, COMPUTE, etc.). These still use dynamic power management, > but they adjust the heuristics used by the GPU to select power states > so the GPU performance ramps up/down more or less aggressively. > > > > Which profile mapping you think make sense? > > My guess would be: > > “BOOTUP_DEFAULT” for balanced > > “POWER_SAVING” for low-power > > “3D_FULL_SCREEN” for performance Yeah, that is what I was thinking. > > > > Since recently we removed that interface for YC, and some earlier APUs don’t > do as much with it. > > So I wonder if this is only really valuable to do this callback for !APU. > Yes, I think so. I think for APUs this will be handled under the covers in the platform firmware going forward. > > > > I feel it's better to leave to platform vendors. For ex: for APU cases they > > may have implementations in which their BIOSes talk to PMFW and this might > > be driving something else here. > > > > Even if changing the heuristic for workload as Alex suggested? > > > > > Also, not sure how to handle a case like, say a laptop with Intel CPU and > > AMD dgpu. > > > > I was actually thinking this approach where there are platform profile > callbacks is best because of that specifically. > > It would allow an Intel CPU system to have a platform profile driver > implemented by the OEM, but then still notify amdgpu dGPU to tune for power > saving or performance workload. > Right, a user could still adjust these via the existing sysfs interface today, this just makes it a little more automatic. I guess it depends whether we want to couple them or not. Alex > > > From: Lazar, Lijo > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 10:05 > To: Alex Deucher ; Limonciello, Mario > > Cc: amd-gfx list > Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] drm/amd/pm: Add support for reacting to platform > profile notification > > > > [Public] > > > > I feel it's better to leave to platform vendors. For ex: for APU cases they > may have implementations in which their BIOSes talk to PMFW and this might be > driving something else here. > > > > Also, not sure how to handle a case like, say a laptop with Intel CPU and AMD > dgpu. > > > > Thanks, > Lijo > > > > > > From: amd-gfx on behalf of Alex > Deucher > Sent: Wednesday, 10 November 2021, 8:44 pm > To: Limonciello, Mario > Cc: amd-gfx list > Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] drm/amd/pm: Add support for reacting to platform > profile notification > > > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 1:24 AM Mario Limonciello > wrote: > > > > Various drivers provide platform profile support to let users set a hint > > in their GUI whether they want to run in a high performance, low battery > > life or balanced configuration. > > > > Drivers that provide this typically work with the firmware on their system > > to configure hardware. In the case of AMDGPU however, the notification > > path doesn't come through firmware and can instead be provided directly > > to the driver from a notification chain. > > > > Use the information of the newly selected profile to tweak > > `dpm_force_performance_level` to that profile IFF the user hasn't manually > > selected `manual` or any other `profile_*` options. > > I don't think we want to force the performance level. This interface > forces various fixed clock configurations for debugging and profiling. > I think what we'd want to select here is the power profile (see > amdgpu_set_pp_power_profile_mode()). For this interface you can > select various profiles (BOOTUP_DEFAULT, 3D_FULL_SCREEN, POWER_SAVING, > VIDEO, VR, COMPUTE, etc.). These still use dynamic power management, > but they adjust the heuristics used by the GPU to select power states > so the GPU performance ramps up/down more or less aggressively. > > Alex > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h | 3 + > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/amdgpu_pm.c | 105 +++- > > 2 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 18 dele
RE: [RFC 2/2] drm/amd/pm: Add support for reacting to platform profile notification
[Public]
> I don't think we want to force the performance level. This interface
forces various fixed clock configurations for debugging and profiling.
Ah got it.
>I think what we'd want to select here is the power profile (see
amdgpu_set_pp_power_profile_mode()). For this interface you can
select various profiles (BOOTUP_DEFAULT, 3D_FULL_SCREEN, POWER_SAVING,
VIDEO, VR, COMPUTE, etc.). These still use dynamic power management,
but they adjust the heuristics used by the GPU to select power states
so the GPU performance ramps up/down more or less aggressively.
Which profile mapping you think make sense?
My guess would be:
"BOOTUP_DEFAULT" for balanced
"POWER_SAVING" for low-power
"3D_FULL_SCREEN" for performance
Since recently we removed that interface for YC, and some earlier APUs don't do
as much with it.
So I wonder if this is only really valuable to do this callback for !APU.
> I feel it's better to leave to platform vendors. For ex: for APU cases they
> may have implementations in which their BIOSes talk to PMFW and this might be
> driving something else here.
Even if changing the heuristic for workload as Alex suggested?
> Also, not sure how to handle a case like, say a laptop with Intel CPU and AMD
> dgpu.
I was actually thinking this approach where there are platform profile
callbacks is best because of that specifically.
It would allow an Intel CPU system to have a platform profile driver
implemented by the OEM, but then still notify amdgpu dGPU to tune for power
saving or performance workload.
From: Lazar, Lijo
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 10:05
To: Alex Deucher ; Limonciello, Mario
Cc: amd-gfx list
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] drm/amd/pm: Add support for reacting to platform profile
notification
[Public]
I feel it's better to leave to platform vendors. For ex: for APU cases they may
have implementations in which their BIOSes talk to PMFW and this might be
driving something else here.
Also, not sure how to handle a case like, say a laptop with Intel CPU and AMD
dgpu.
Thanks,
Lijo
From: amd-gfx
mailto:amd-gfx-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org>>
on behalf of Alex Deucher mailto:alexdeuc...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, 10 November 2021, 8:44 pm
To: Limonciello, Mario
Cc: amd-gfx list
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] drm/amd/pm: Add support for reacting to platform profile
notification
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 1:24 AM Mario Limonciello
mailto:mario.limoncie...@amd.com>> wrote:
>
> Various drivers provide platform profile support to let users set a hint
> in their GUI whether they want to run in a high performance, low battery
> life or balanced configuration.
>
> Drivers that provide this typically work with the firmware on their system
> to configure hardware. In the case of AMDGPU however, the notification
> path doesn't come through firmware and can instead be provided directly
> to the driver from a notification chain.
>
> Use the information of the newly selected profile to tweak
> `dpm_force_performance_level` to that profile IFF the user hasn't manually
> selected `manual` or any other `profile_*` options.
I don't think we want to force the performance level. This interface
forces various fixed clock configurations for debugging and profiling.
I think what we'd want to select here is the power profile (see
amdgpu_set_pp_power_profile_mode()). For this interface you can
select various profiles (BOOTUP_DEFAULT, 3D_FULL_SCREEN, POWER_SAVING,
VIDEO, VR, COMPUTE, etc.). These still use dynamic power management,
but they adjust the heuristics used by the GPU to select power states
so the GPU performance ramps up/down more or less aggressively.
Alex
>
> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello
> mailto:mario.limoncie...@amd.com>>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h | 3 +
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/amdgpu_pm.c | 105 +++-
> 2 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
> index b85b67a88a3d..27b0be23b6ac 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
> @@ -1097,6 +1097,9 @@ struct amdgpu_device {
>
> struct amdgpu_reset_control *reset_cntl;
> uint32_t
> ip_versions[HW_ID_MAX][HWIP_MAX_INSTANCE];
> +
> + /* platform profile notifications */
> + struct notifier_block platform_profile_notifier;
> };
>
> static inline struct amdgpu_device *drm_to_adev(struct drm_device *ddev)
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/amdgpu_pm.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/amdgpu_pm.c
> index 41472ed99253..33fc52b90d4c 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/amdgpu_pm.c
> +
Re: [RFC 2/2] drm/amd/pm: Add support for reacting to platform profile notification
[Public]
I feel it's better to leave to platform vendors. For ex: for APU cases they may
have implementations in which their BIOSes talk to PMFW and this might be
driving something else here.
Also, not sure how to handle a case like, say a laptop with Intel CPU and AMD
dgpu.
Thanks,
Lijo
From: amd-gfx on behalf of Alex Deucher
Sent: Wednesday, 10 November 2021, 8:44 pm
To: Limonciello, Mario
Cc: amd-gfx list
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] drm/amd/pm: Add support for reacting to platform profile
notification
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 1:24 AM Mario Limonciello
wrote:
>
> Various drivers provide platform profile support to let users set a hint
> in their GUI whether they want to run in a high performance, low battery
> life or balanced configuration.
>
> Drivers that provide this typically work with the firmware on their system
> to configure hardware. In the case of AMDGPU however, the notification
> path doesn't come through firmware and can instead be provided directly
> to the driver from a notification chain.
>
> Use the information of the newly selected profile to tweak
> `dpm_force_performance_level` to that profile IFF the user hasn't manually
> selected `manual` or any other `profile_*` options.
I don't think we want to force the performance level. This interface
forces various fixed clock configurations for debugging and profiling.
I think what we'd want to select here is the power profile (see
amdgpu_set_pp_power_profile_mode()). For this interface you can
select various profiles (BOOTUP_DEFAULT, 3D_FULL_SCREEN, POWER_SAVING,
VIDEO, VR, COMPUTE, etc.). These still use dynamic power management,
but they adjust the heuristics used by the GPU to select power states
so the GPU performance ramps up/down more or less aggressively.
Alex
>
> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h | 3 +
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/amdgpu_pm.c | 105 +++-
> 2 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
> index b85b67a88a3d..27b0be23b6ac 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
> @@ -1097,6 +1097,9 @@ struct amdgpu_device {
>
> struct amdgpu_reset_control *reset_cntl;
> uint32_t
> ip_versions[HW_ID_MAX][HWIP_MAX_INSTANCE];
> +
> + /* platform profile notifications */
> + struct notifier_block platform_profile_notifier;
> };
>
> static inline struct amdgpu_device *drm_to_adev(struct drm_device *ddev)
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/amdgpu_pm.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/amdgpu_pm.c
> index 41472ed99253..33fc52b90d4c 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/amdgpu_pm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/amdgpu_pm.c
> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@
> #include
> #include
> #include
> +#include
> #include
> #include
> #include "hwmgr.h"
> @@ -200,6 +201,33 @@ static ssize_t amdgpu_set_power_dpm_state(struct device
> *dev,
> return count;
> }
>
> +static int amdgpu_get_forced_level(struct device *dev, enum
> amd_dpm_forced_level *level)
> +{
> + struct drm_device *ddev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> + struct amdgpu_device *adev = drm_to_adev(ddev);
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (amdgpu_in_reset(adev))
> + return -EPERM;
> + if (adev->in_suspend && !adev->in_runpm)
> + return -EPERM;
> +
> + ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(ddev->dev);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(ddev->dev);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + if (adev->powerplay.pp_funcs->get_performance_level)
> + *level = amdgpu_dpm_get_performance_level(adev);
> + else
> + *level = adev->pm.dpm.forced_level;
> +
> + pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(ddev->dev);
> + pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(ddev->dev);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
>
> /**
> * DOC: power_dpm_force_performance_level
> @@ -264,29 +292,13 @@ static ssize_t
> amdgpu_get_power_dpm_force_performance_level(struct device *dev,
> struct
> device_attribute *attr,
> char *buf)
> {
> - struct drm_device *ddev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> - struct amdgpu_device *adev = drm_to_adev(ddev);
> enum amd_dpm_forced_level level = 0xff;
> int ret;
>
> - if (amdgpu_in_reset(adev))
> - return -EPERM;
> -
Re: [RFC 2/2] drm/amd/pm: Add support for reacting to platform profile notification
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 1:24 AM Mario Limonciello
wrote:
>
> Various drivers provide platform profile support to let users set a hint
> in their GUI whether they want to run in a high performance, low battery
> life or balanced configuration.
>
> Drivers that provide this typically work with the firmware on their system
> to configure hardware. In the case of AMDGPU however, the notification
> path doesn't come through firmware and can instead be provided directly
> to the driver from a notification chain.
>
> Use the information of the newly selected profile to tweak
> `dpm_force_performance_level` to that profile IFF the user hasn't manually
> selected `manual` or any other `profile_*` options.
I don't think we want to force the performance level. This interface
forces various fixed clock configurations for debugging and profiling.
I think what we'd want to select here is the power profile (see
amdgpu_set_pp_power_profile_mode()). For this interface you can
select various profiles (BOOTUP_DEFAULT, 3D_FULL_SCREEN, POWER_SAVING,
VIDEO, VR, COMPUTE, etc.). These still use dynamic power management,
but they adjust the heuristics used by the GPU to select power states
so the GPU performance ramps up/down more or less aggressively.
Alex
>
> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h | 3 +
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/amdgpu_pm.c | 105 +++-
> 2 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
> index b85b67a88a3d..27b0be23b6ac 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
> @@ -1097,6 +1097,9 @@ struct amdgpu_device {
>
> struct amdgpu_reset_control *reset_cntl;
> uint32_t
> ip_versions[HW_ID_MAX][HWIP_MAX_INSTANCE];
> +
> + /* platform profile notifications */
> + struct notifier_block platform_profile_notifier;
> };
>
> static inline struct amdgpu_device *drm_to_adev(struct drm_device *ddev)
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/amdgpu_pm.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/amdgpu_pm.c
> index 41472ed99253..33fc52b90d4c 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/amdgpu_pm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/amdgpu_pm.c
> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@
> #include
> #include
> #include
> +#include
> #include
> #include
> #include "hwmgr.h"
> @@ -200,6 +201,33 @@ static ssize_t amdgpu_set_power_dpm_state(struct device
> *dev,
> return count;
> }
>
> +static int amdgpu_get_forced_level(struct device *dev, enum
> amd_dpm_forced_level *level)
> +{
> + struct drm_device *ddev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> + struct amdgpu_device *adev = drm_to_adev(ddev);
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (amdgpu_in_reset(adev))
> + return -EPERM;
> + if (adev->in_suspend && !adev->in_runpm)
> + return -EPERM;
> +
> + ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(ddev->dev);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(ddev->dev);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + if (adev->powerplay.pp_funcs->get_performance_level)
> + *level = amdgpu_dpm_get_performance_level(adev);
> + else
> + *level = adev->pm.dpm.forced_level;
> +
> + pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(ddev->dev);
> + pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(ddev->dev);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
>
> /**
> * DOC: power_dpm_force_performance_level
> @@ -264,29 +292,13 @@ static ssize_t
> amdgpu_get_power_dpm_force_performance_level(struct device *dev,
> struct
> device_attribute *attr,
> char *buf)
> {
> - struct drm_device *ddev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> - struct amdgpu_device *adev = drm_to_adev(ddev);
> enum amd_dpm_forced_level level = 0xff;
> int ret;
>
> - if (amdgpu_in_reset(adev))
> - return -EPERM;
> - if (adev->in_suspend && !adev->in_runpm)
> - return -EPERM;
> + ret = amdgpu_get_forced_level(dev, &level);
>
> - ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(ddev->dev);
> - if (ret < 0) {
> - pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(ddev->dev);
> + if (ret < 0)
> return ret;
> - }
> -
> - if (adev->powerplay.pp_funcs->get_performance_level)
> - level = amdgpu_dpm_get_performance_level(adev);
> - else
> - level = adev->pm.dpm.forced_level;
> -
> - pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(ddev->dev);
> - pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(ddev->dev);
>
> return sysfs_emit(buf, "%s\n",
> (level == AMD_DPM_FORCED_LEVEL_AUTO) ? "auto" :
> @@ -405,6 +417,59 @@ static ssize_t
> amdgpu_set_power_dpm_force_performance_level(struct device *dev,
> return count;
> }
>
> +static void amdgpu_update_profile(struct device *dev
