On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Eric Caruso <ejcaruso@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Paulo Zanoni <przanoni@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> 2015-03-13 16:01 GMT-03:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx>: >>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Eric Caruso <ejcaruso@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> This patch allows userspace to toggle PSR through a debugfs interface. >>>>> It adds functionality to write 0 or 1 to the existing >>>>> i915_edp_psr_status file in order to change the relevant module >>>>> parameter and enable/disable PSR. >>>>> >>>>> Previous upstream feedback did not like making it a connector property >>>>> or putting it in sysfs because that would require API stability going >>>>> forward. debugfs interfaces do not have this restriction. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Caruso <ejcaruso@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> What do we need this for? debugfs is generally for debugging (where >>>> the module option should be enough) and for testcases (which doesn't >>>> seem to be the case here). >>> >>> What is wrong with "echo 1 > /sys/module/i915/parameters/enable_psr"? >>> >>>> -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 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Paulo Zanoni >> >> Forgive me if this is wrong, but updating the module parameter doesn't >> change whether or not PSR is enabled immediately. You need to go through >> intel_enable_ddi for this to take effect. > > indeed. > >> >> We were using something like this for testing on Chromium OS, because >> PSR would sometimes cause issues. This allows us to change the module >> parameter and enable/disable PSR in one step. > > I like the idea. But I'd prefer a sysfs toggle interface though... Aren't you adding a connector property at this point? If so, it seems like both this debugfs knob and a hypothetical sysfs interface would both be unnecessary. (see: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2015-March/063074.html) > >> >> The upstream feedback I mentioned was done about a year ago: >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2014-March/041896.html >> It seemed to favor a debugfs knob for this. >> _______________________________________________ >> Intel-gfx mailing list >> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx > > > > -- > Rodrigo Vivi > Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
