On Mon, 2023-10-16 at 14:16 +0300, Jouni Högander wrote: > Generally we have writable device parameters in debugfs. No need > to allow writing module parameters. > > Signed-off-by: Jouni Högander <jouni.hogander@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.c > index 8e6353c1c25e..077f2dee2975 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.c > @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ intel_display_param_named_unsafe(enable_dc, int, 0400, > intel_display_param_named_unsafe(enable_dpt, bool, 0400, > "Enable display page table (DPT) (default: true)"); > > -intel_display_param_named_unsafe(enable_sagv, bool, 0600, > +intel_display_param_named_unsafe(enable_sagv, bool, 0400, > "Enable system agent voltage/frequency scaling (SAGV) (default: true)"); > > intel_display_param_named_unsafe(disable_power_well, int, 0400, This, as well as other similar changes throughout this series, could be controversial, since it's a userspace API change of sorts. It used to be possible to write but it won't be anymore. But, as we discussed offline, it shouldn't be problem, because probably nobody is writing to them, and most likely doing so wouldn't have the expected result, since the device copies were not getting updated. Reviewed-by: Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@xxxxxxxxx> -- Cheers, Luca.
