On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 01:52:36PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 22:38:41 +0200 > Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 01:43:20PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > > Unsupported; we just do RC6. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > You only change the sysfs stuff here, so I wondered where the hunk for > > intel_pm.c is. And noticed that we don't actually obey the enable_rc6 > > parameter! Aside: We don't do any such force-to-0 stuff on other > > platforms, so why do we need this? > > Gosh all these questions for such a simple patch. > > I was just annoyed that the sysfs rc6 residency test was getting bogus > values from registers that happened to be there but don't correlate > with rc6. Queued for -next, thanks for the patch. I've also pimped the commit message a bit to explain what's going on. -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
