Hi, On 01-02-18 13:31, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi All, As you may have heard I've recently been working on improving Linux laptop battery life, specifically the OOTB experience without tweaking any options such as e.g. powertop --auto-tune would do, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ImprovedLaptopBatteryLife So far this is going quite nicely, it looks like Fedora 28 will have SATA ALPM (big win), autosuspend of USB Bluetooth HCIs and snd_intel_hda powersaving all enabled OOTB. Looking for more savings I've run some quick tests with i915.enable_psr=1, this seems to be another nice win (for an idle system) of aprox. 0.5W. So as with the other 3 items I just mentioned I'm now looking into somehow enabling this be default, at least one some models. Currently I'm thinking doing a whitelist or blacklist (*) for this, but first I think we need some more data about on how much models this just works and where it is causing issues, as such I've done a blog post to gather this data: https://hansdegoede.livejournal.com/18653.html So I will revisit this eventually, once people have had some time to respond to this blog-post. In the mean time I wonder if anyone can explain why this options is currently disabled by default. E.g. are there any known specific models laptops / panels which are causing issues, are the bugzillas for this? Etc. ? Also does anyone know if any problems are mainly panel or laptop model specific ? I would expect this to mostly be panel specific and not depend on the model laptop (given then certain models ship with different panels over their production lifetime). Regards, Hans p.s. If anyone on this list can make 10 minutes to run the tests described in my blogpost and gather the data mentioned there, then that would be great. *) I know that maintaining such a white/blacklist in the kernel is going to be a pain, so my current thinking on this is to make this runtime configurable through a sysfs attribute and then use a udev rule + udev hwdb entries for this.
So a quick update on this. The response has been quite overwhelming, with well over 50 test-reports received sofar. The results are all over the place, some people see no changes, some people report the aprox. 0.5W saving my own test show and many people also report display problems, sometimes combined with a significant increase in power-consumption. I need to take a closer look at all the results, but right now I believe that the best way forward with this is (unfortunately) a whitelist matching on a combination of panel-id (from edid) and dmi data, so that we can at least enable this on popular models (any model with atleast one user willing to contribute). So intel-gfx-team folks any input from your side, any feedback on the plan to use a udev rule + udev hwdb entries to build a whitelist for this? Regards, Hans _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
