On Thu, 16 May 2019, "Summers, Stuart" <stuart.summers@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2019-05-16 at 12:59 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Tue, 14 May 2019, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > One possibility that just came to my mind now is, what if we make >> > this only for platforms that are still protected by >> > is_alpha_support=1 >> > (soon becoming require_force_probe=1) >> >> Please don't conflate alpha_support or force_probe with *anything* >> else. >> >> > But this is just one side of the coin... when product is out there >> > and we want the user to debug the issue to see if it is a RC6 bug >> > we have no way to verify that. :/ >> >> The problem is, if it works with rc6 disabled, it doesn't prove it's >> an >> rc6 bug either. > > Good point. I'm not saying we should enforce a process of disabling RC6 > for the platform if enable_rc6=0 results in success. I'm just saying > having the option is useful from a debug perspective. We will still > need to do the appropriate full analysis, including the normal code > review process on a pre-case basis when debug involves this parameter. > But the parameter itself is still useful. The trouble starts when users figure out that enable_rc6=0 works around a particular problem they have (likely by way of disabling runtime pm, not directly related to rc6). You could argue this is a good thing, but unfortunately we generally never hear from them again, and the root cause remains unsolved, with degraded user experience wrt power management. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
