Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Correct sandybrige overclocking

2013-03-24 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Ben Widawsky wrote: >> Apparently massive overclocking like that makes your system die >> prematurely in a crash. So 3.10 it is, imo. >> -Daniel > > It's like all overclocking I guess, we simply give the user an > opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot. Glad

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Correct sandybrige overclocking

2013-03-23 Thread Ben Widawsky
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 08:39:30PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 08:32:53PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 08:19:56PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > > Change the gen6+ max delay if the pcode read was successful (not the > > > inverse). > > > > > > T

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Correct sandybrige overclocking

2013-03-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 08:32:53PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 08:19:56PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > Change the gen6+ max delay if the pcode read was successful (not the > > inverse). > > > > The previous code was all sorts of wrong and has existed since I broke > > i

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Correct sandybrige overclocking

2013-03-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 08:19:56PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > Change the gen6+ max delay if the pcode read was successful (not the > inverse). > > The previous code was all sorts of wrong and has existed since I broke > it: > commit 42c0526c930523425ff6edc95b7235ce7ab9308d > Author: Ben Widawsky

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Correct sandybrige overclocking

2013-03-20 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 09:57:53AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:33:28 -0700 > Ben Widawsky wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 09:21:47AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > > On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:19:56 -0700 > > > Ben Widawsky wrote: > > > > > > > Change the gen6+ max dela

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Correct sandybrige overclocking

2013-03-20 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:33:28 -0700 Ben Widawsky wrote: > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 09:21:47AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:19:56 -0700 > > Ben Widawsky wrote: > > > > > Change the gen6+ max delay if the pcode read was successful (not the > > > inverse). > > > > > > The p

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Correct sandybrige overclocking

2013-03-20 Thread Ben Widawsky
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 09:21:47AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:19:56 -0700 > Ben Widawsky wrote: > > > Change the gen6+ max delay if the pcode read was successful (not the > > inverse). > > > > The previous code was all sorts of wrong and has existed since I broke > > it:

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Correct sandybrige overclocking

2013-03-20 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:19:56 -0700 Ben Widawsky wrote: > Change the gen6+ max delay if the pcode read was successful (not the > inverse). > > The previous code was all sorts of wrong and has existed since I broke > it: > commit 42c0526c930523425ff6edc95b7235ce7ab9308d > Author: Ben Widawsky > D

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Correct sandybrige overclocking

2013-03-20 Thread Chris Wilson
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 08:19:56PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > Change the gen6+ max delay if the pcode read was successful (not the > inverse). > > The previous code was all sorts of wrong and has existed since I broke > it: > commit 42c0526c930523425ff6edc95b7235ce7ab9308d > Author: Ben Widawsky

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Correct sandybrige overclocking

2013-03-19 Thread Ben Widawsky
Change the gen6+ max delay if the pcode read was successful (not the inverse). The previous code was all sorts of wrong and has existed since I broke it: commit 42c0526c930523425ff6edc95b7235ce7ab9308d Author: Ben Widawsky Date: Wed Sep 26 10:34:00 2012 -0700 drm/i915: Extract PCU communic