On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> 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)? > > That is fine for me too... either add all features under this umbrella > or make it be only one feature like drrs that doesn't have its own > parameter... > the only cons I see in this case is the name of parameter that is too > generic... We're allowed to kill module options now, so if we fix up drrs and make powersave completely useless, we can just remove. > But honestly I don't have a stronger position I just wanted to start > the discussion because I don't like the way it is today... So it is up > to you... I can either send v2 or a new simple patch that removes fbc > from this i915_powersave. Just let me know what is better... I vote for moving fbc out of powersave as a separate option. Worst case we need to educate a users and tell him that frobbing around with random module options isn't a good idea ;-) -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
