On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 02:45:29PM -0300, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: >> So if I understood correctly you suggest that if we have >> i915_powersave=0 and i915_enable_rc6=1 we should enable rc6? >> This is not how it is implemented nowadays on fbc right now... And >> this lead me to use pwoesave as an umbrella for force disable/enable >> ignoring individual parameters. But I'm open to do the other way >> around as long as we have a standardized behavior. > > Just depends on whether powersave=0 is default and powersave=-1 is > force off, with powersave=1 as force on. > >> So, we can either respect individual parameters when they are set or >> completely ignore. In the way it is now it doesn't respect individual >> fbc parameter for powersave=0. > > My opinion is that we respect the specific module parameters, and if > they are left to default values, then apply the global powersave > parameter. If that too is default, then we apply the module default. Jumping in a bit late, but: I've honestly never understood why we have two levels of module options. Imo having individual knobs for each delicate feature makes more sense, strange dependencies in module option will only confuse dim-witted developers like me when looking at a bug ;-) So could we just reduce powersave to the few things that we haven't touched yet (iirc only DRRS)? -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
