Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 4/4] drm/i915: drpc debugfs update for gen6

2011-12-14 Thread Eugeni Dodonov
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 17:37, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:22:00 -0800 > Ben Widawsky wrote: > > > Many of the old fields from Ironlake have gone away. Strip all those > > fields, and try to update to fields people care about. RC information > > isn't exactly ideal anymore. All w

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 4/4] drm/i915: drpc debugfs update for gen6

2011-12-13 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:22:00 -0800 Ben Widawsky wrote: > Many of the old fields from Ironlake have gone away. Strip all those > fields, and try to update to fields people care about. RC information > isn't exactly ideal anymore. All we can guarantee when we read the > register is that we're not u

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 4/4] drm/i915: drpc debugfs update for gen6

2011-12-12 Thread Ben Widawsky
On 12/12/2011 07:22 PM, Ben Widawsky wrote: > Many of the old fields from Ironlake have gone away. Strip all those > fields, and try to update to fields people care about. RC information > isn't exactly ideal anymore. All we can guarantee when we read the > register is that we're not using forcewak

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 4/4] drm/i915: drpc debugfs update for gen6

2011-12-12 Thread Ben Widawsky
Many of the old fields from Ironlake have gone away. Strip all those fields, and try to update to fields people care about. RC information isn't exactly ideal anymore. All we can guarantee when we read the register is that we're not using forcewake, ie. the software isn't forcing the hardware to st