On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 06:45:36PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Tue, 07 Nov 2017, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Now that we have CI, and that pm_rpm fully passes (I guess the audio > > folks have implemented proper runtime pm for snd-hda, hooray, pls > > confirm) it's time to enable this again by default. > > > > Real goal here is to have 1 configuration only that we fully support, > > instead of tons of different codes with every user/customer tuning it > > differently. And really, power stuff should work by default, and > > should be enabled by everywhere where it is save to do so. > > > > v2: Completely new commit message, a few years passed since v1 ... > > I suppose this is something that could use more than a single round of > IGT CI before merging...? The dedicated pm_rpm tests explicitly enable this (with a timeout of 0) on all machines we run in shards. It's been green for a long time. So this just tests for accidental fallout everywhere else (timing shifts essentially), which I think is fairly low priority. Hence I'm not terribly worried about this one here. > BR, > Jani. > > > > > > > Cc: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: "Yang, Libin" <libin.yang@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: "Lin, Mengdong" <mengdong.lin@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: "Li, Jocelyn" <jocelyn.li@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: "Kaskinen, Tanu" <tanu.kaskinen@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: "Zanoni, Paulo R" <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c | 4 +++- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c > > index 8315499452dc..dc24d008d8d4 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c > > @@ -3232,7 +3232,7 @@ void intel_runtime_pm_enable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > > struct pci_dev *pdev = dev_priv->drm.pdev; > > struct device *kdev = &pdev->dev; > > > > - pm_runtime_set_autosuspend_delay(kdev, 10000); /* 10s */ > > + pm_runtime_set_autosuspend_delay(kdev, 100); Wrt the data requested for this here. On bxt (probably the slowest box we have), from the pm_rpm tests, looking at dmesg I get the following values: - device suspend: 3-4ms - device resume: 10-11ms So grand total is 15ms for a transition. On top the display will keep us out of runtime pm, as will even a mildly busy gt. I think the 100ms value isn't aggressive at all given that. -Daniel > > pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(kdev); > > > > /* > > @@ -3251,6 +3251,8 @@ void intel_runtime_pm_enable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > > pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(kdev); > > } > > > > + pm_runtime_allow(kdev); > > + > > /* > > * The core calls the driver load handler with an RPM reference held. > > * We drop that here and will reacquire it during unloading in > > -- > Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
