On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 04:18:39PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013, Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:49:13 +0100
> > Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 03:32:16PM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> >> > It should only be used with caution...
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net>
> >>
> >> Isn't that like the general assumption of these module parameters that
> >> they can have pretty massive bad side-effects? Meaning I'm routinely
> >> checking these already anyway in bug reports, same for non-standard
> >> rc6 settings.
> >> -Daniel
> >>
> >
> > I felt that way too, until we got a complain in #intel-gfx and it
> > changed my mind.
> >
> > Whatevs, I ain't gonna fight for this one, I'll just punt the bug
> > reporter to you next time.
>
> Yeah, I agree it's *our* general assumption that these may have bad
> side-effects. People just see the random forum posts recommending this
> and that module param, and stick them in... Hmm, which means they won't
> read that warning anyway. DRM_INFO("don't report a bug about this") when
> enabling a feature that's disabled by default on a platform?
>
> Jani.
Now that's the kind of pessimism I like to hear! OTOH, the current
message: "Enable frame buffer compression for power savings" wouldn't
indicate any reason to not use it. And yes, I know, what git blame says.
I was on a personal crusade to fix FBC on ILK when I wrote that.
I like DRM_INFO as well, but I don't really see a reason not to change
the modinfo (DRM_INFO requires loading the wrong setting first).
--
Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center
