On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 06:01:28PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote: > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 03:42:27PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 10:50:39AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote: > > > Since the defaults for some external power management related settings > > > prevents us from testing our power management functionality properly, > > > we have to work around it. Currently this is done from the individual > > > test cases, but this is sub-optimal. This patch moves the PM-related > > > workarounds into a separate library, and adds some code to restore the > > > previous settings for the SATA link power management while at it. > > > > Why is it called "workarounds"? That gives me the impression we're > > working around something that's supposed to work but doesn't. That's not > > the case here. > > Workarounds was because we are working around "imperfect" settings > in other components. At least to me power management should be enabled > out of the box, not something that requires admin-level workarounds. > Since we're not in control of said defaults, we have to modify the > settings when we run our tests, hence workarounds. Fully agreed that power tuning should be applied by default, but that's a loooooong process to convince all the other kernel maintainers. And we need to get our own house in order first too, but that's in progress. > That said, as I've replied to a later post, igt_pm is fine by me. One more: Please namespace all the library functions you're adding and exporting to tests with igt_pm_. Static/internal functions can still be named however you feel like. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
