On Tue, 26 Nov 2024, Crystal Wood wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-11-26 at 17:29 -0500, John Kacur wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 13 Nov 2024, tglozar@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> >
> > > @@ -254,6 +259,11 @@ static void set_latency_target(void)
> > > return;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + if (deepest_idle_state >= -1) {
> > > + warn("not setting cpu_dma_latency, --deepest-idle-state is set instead\n");
> >
> > I don't think we want to have a warning when the software is doing what we
> > request of it.
> > Can we either just move the logic out of this function into main and
> > call either set_latency_target or the deepest latency state logic as
> > appropriate, or move all the power management logic into a new function?
>
> This could be said about the laptop and power_management checks too...
true
> I'd go with verbose info prints rather than warnings for all three, if
> anything.
Note that verbose on cyclictest doesn't mean print extra warnings, it
means output values on stdout for statistics.
>
> I'm not sure how cluttering up main() with more logic would help, but
> turning set_latency_target() into something like
> setup_power()/cleanup_power() sounds good.
>
Sure, that's why I gave two options, however, there is already
--deepest-idle-state logic in main(), how much more clutter does it add to
not call set_latency_target() if we're using --deepest-idle-state?
John
