On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 06:00:22 -0700, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
Hi Tvrtko,
>
> On 04/10/2022 10:29, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >
> > On 03/10/2022 20:24, Ashutosh Dixit wrote:
> >> PMU and sysfs use different wakeref's to "interpret" zero freq. Sysfs
> >> uses
> >> runtime PM wakeref (see
On 04/10/2022 14:00, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 04/10/2022 10:29, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 03/10/2022 20:24, Ashutosh Dixit wrote:
PMU and sysfs use different wakeref's to "interpret" zero freq. Sysfs
uses
runtime PM wakeref (see intel_rps_read_punit_req and
On 04/10/2022 10:29, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 03/10/2022 20:24, Ashutosh Dixit wrote:
PMU and sysfs use different wakeref's to "interpret" zero freq. Sysfs
uses
runtime PM wakeref (see intel_rps_read_punit_req and
intel_rps_read_actual_frequency). PMU uses the GT parked/unparked
wakeref. In
On 03/10/2022 20:24, Ashutosh Dixit wrote:
PMU and sysfs use different wakeref's to "interpret" zero freq. Sysfs uses
runtime PM wakeref (see intel_rps_read_punit_req and
intel_rps_read_actual_frequency). PMU uses the GT parked/unparked
wakeref. In general the GT wakeref is held for less time
PMU and sysfs use different wakeref's to "interpret" zero freq. Sysfs uses
runtime PM wakeref (see intel_rps_read_punit_req and
intel_rps_read_actual_frequency). PMU uses the GT parked/unparked
wakeref. In general the GT wakeref is held for less time that the runtime
PM wakeref which causes PMU to