From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EE21C36008 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2025 07:24:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C926B10E2B7; Tue, 1 Apr 2025 07:24:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: gabe.freedesktop.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="BqI4MjVR"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.13]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D253B10E513 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2025 07:24:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1743492262; x=1775028262; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=Zm4faa3FpfB0qvh+2HLhaFrFOp8NWIcZJNIiUQyDAF4=; b=BqI4MjVRnM2IMeXL1OoWyR78XUZkJkwUiI23Ed62N88nTTfTiZXT22Kq KkQB3Pzv6BRkokXXRjtTqhzObzOQ8GY9I8N6wwoATAuQAFAp6Is+Gf7Xy ZFxQ2LJyJ8KnwrUE5w9Hsi8v7zZE6+s6qXtjhLSR47P/fAyNifu3YbRDR Ps1XOu/jwnFdlyZIOfTw/sqRFqLX4pcKpJPn9fWg2s1KIrTZ4PBf2tEnK JA9/i1H0QQfua76u4BUPiMDPSvrua57pecOLpj4+OBVLYI8dGFxmHNTtf AcuZzm9GjXtK/7ASy32smEgLyQ4u+ESVMvLWYjRCIgQA1O5UB2Rut1vkd A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: +sFJT5dMTOGvFCJPBCZtQQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: mORLjVZVRsakHBFi/YUSVA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11390"; a="55796057" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.14,292,1736841600"; d="scan'208";a="55796057" Received: from fmviesa010.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.150]) by orvoesa105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Apr 2025 00:24:21 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: oMHkYEI9R1SrnMtWOD6XHQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: f6zlBvAlRMO4rkjjRNlVXQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.14,292,1736841600"; d="scan'208";a="126769003" Received: from ksztyber-mobl2.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.245.51]) by fmviesa010-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Apr 2025 00:24:20 -0700 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 09:24:17 +0200 From: Andi Shyti To: Sk Anirban Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Badal Nilawar Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] drm/i915/selftests: Refactor RC6 power measurement and error handling Message-ID: References: <20250327191924.4131598-1-sk.anirban@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250327191924.4131598-1-sk.anirban@intel.com> X-BeenThere: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel graphics driver community testing & development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" Hi Anirban, On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 12:49:24AM +0530, Sk Anirban wrote: > Revise the power measurement logic to save and evaluate energy values. How is the logic been revised? Can you be more specific please? > Previously, the test only checked whether the system had entered the RC6 > state, without considering any potential interruptions in that state. > This update introduces a threshold check to ensure that the GPU remains > in the RC6 state properly during the specified sleep duration. How is the threshold been evaluated? As far as I can see, there is only one pr_err() added in a path that fails anyway (it's almost more a debug). Should we evaluate the threshold outside from the failing path? Andi