[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0i0FMw90vBH9L9EirX-mfFzh4Fb0npE8Y7rHbFn0JpZyw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 10:57:12 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org>,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
rodrigo.vivi@...el.com, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] drm/i915: Move to new PM core fields
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:22 PM Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guittot@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 15:36, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 15:22, Vincent Guittot
> > <vincent.guittot@...aro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > With jiffies been replaced by raw ns in PM core accounting, 915 driver is
> > > updated to use this new time infrastructure.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c | 12 ++++++------
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.h | 4 ++--
> > > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c
> > > index d6c8f8f..cf6437d 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c
> > > @@ -493,14 +493,14 @@ static u64 get_rc6(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
> > > */
> > > if (kdev->power.runtime_status == RPM_SUSPENDED) {
> > > if (!i915->pmu.sample[__I915_SAMPLE_RC6_ESTIMATED].cur)
> > > - i915->pmu.suspended_jiffies_last =
> > > - kdev->power.suspended_jiffies;
> > > + i915->pmu.suspended_time_last =
> > > + kdev->power.suspended_time;
> > >
> >
> > Huh, so patch 2 introduces a complier error because of removing the
> > old fields. We can't have that.
>
> I agree
> The patch was mainly to raise discussion
OK, so patch [1/3] from this series should be applicable regardless, right?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists