From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff McGee Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Add power feature debugfs disabling Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 09:44:57 -0600 Message-ID: <20140206154457.GE19424@jeffdesk> References: <1391204572-18888-1-git-send-email-jeff.mcgee@intel.com> <20140204113000.GN17001@phenom.ffwll.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A44AFBBC0 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 07:37:16 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140204113000.GN17001@phenom.ffwll.local> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org To: Daniel Vetter Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org 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 > > > > 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