Re: [PATCH 0/5] Add power feature debugfs disabling

[Jeff McGee <jeff.mcgee@intel.com>]

On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 12:30:00PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 03:42:47PM -0600, jeff.mcgee@intel.com wrote:
> > From: Jeff McGee <jeff.mcgee@intel.com>
> > 
> > This series has recently been accepted into the Haswell Android kernel and
> > helps with debugging and profiling these power features. I would like it
> > to be considered for upstream incorporation. The patches here have been
> > rebased (minimal changes required) and compile-tested only.
> > 
> > Broad device support is provided, accept for RPS and RC6 with Broadwell
> > and Valleyview. Both of these were somewhat of a moving target and I
> > didn't have devices to work with. Support can of course be added with
> > help from appropriate folks.
> > 
> > The hooks introduce some amount of overhead as an additional check is
> > often needed to determine whether the feature is on or off - similar to
> > the module parameters that already exist. I felt that the overhead was
> > minimal enough and didn't want to ugly up the code with CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
> > compile conditionals. But I'm open to the list's thoughts on this.
> > 
> > IGT tests of these new interfaces can certainly be added. I wanted to
> > make sure there was sufficient interest in having these interfaces before
> > starting on the tests. So please provide feedback.
> 
> debugfs doesn't have any abi guarantees and hence requirements are much
> lower. Generally I only want a testcase for new debugfs if it is complex
> infrastructure and other testcases rely on its functionality, like the CRC
> stuff. Simple on/off knobs imo don't need testcases really.
> 
> Still even debugfs code has a bit of cost, so I'll hold off until someone
> says that "yep, this is useful for developing stuff, I'll review it" or
> some i-g-ts show up.

Our Android system validation tests are expecting these interfaces. That's
not igt, I know, but is supporting downstream test suites a priority? I can
get our val guys on the list to +1 the need for these patches. Likewise I
can request a developer from my team to review these patches. Or are you
looking specifically for someone outside our downstream product to 2nd the
need-for and quality of the patches?
-Jeff