[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 14:26:28 +1000
From: Jason Stubbs <jasonbstubbs@...il.com>
To: Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: fix regression after clock gating init split
On Sat, 28 May 2011 05:44:11 Keith Packard wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2011 23:44:19 +1000, Jason Stubbs <jasonbstubbs@...il.com>
wrote:
> > From: Jason Stubbs <jasonbstubbs@...il.com>
> >
> > However, there are some code paths, notably IS_PINEVIEW(dev), where
> > init_clock_gating is not set and not needed.
>
> Looks like Pineview should be using the gen3_init_clock_gating function.
Yep, you are right. Adding printk()s to the original implementation confirmed
that - at least on my hardware. I should have known to check that...
There are two other code paths where an init_clock_gating function isn't
specified though. The specific code paths are:
HAS_PCH_SPLIT() && !IS_GEN5() && !IS_GEN6() && !IS_IVYBRIDGE()
Looking at the original intel_enable_clock_gating() function, there would
have been some intialization done for this case.
IS_GEN4() && !IS_CRESTLINE() && !IS_BROADWATER()
It looks like this would have gone into the final "no gating match" if/else
branch.
If both of the above don't happen in the real world, then I guess it's fine as
is. If either are possible, then they need to be fixed too.
I'll just (re)send a patch for the IS_PINEVIEW() case and leave the above to
somebody who knows better than I...
Regards,
Jason Stubbs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists