lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] vga_switcheroo: add power support for windows 10 machines.
From
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Mika Westerberg
<mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 07:47:39PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> >
>> >> - if (pcie_port_runtime_suspend_allowed(dev))
>> >> + if (pcie_port_runtime_suspend_allowed(dev)) {
>> >> + pm_runtime_allow(&dev->dev);
>> >
>> > PCI drivers typically have left this decision up to the userspace. I'm
>> > wondering whether it is good idea to deviate from that here? Of course
>> > this allows immediate power savings but could potentially cause problems
>> > as well.
>> >
>>
>> No distro has ever shipped userspace to do this, I really think this
>> is a bad design.
>> We have wasted countless watts of power on this stupid idea that people will
>> run powertop, only a few people in the world run powertop, lots of
>> people use Linux.
>
> That is a fair point.
>
> I do not have anything against calling pm_runtime_allow() here. In fact
> we already do the same in Intel LPSS drivers. I just wanted to bring
> that up.
>
> Rafael, what do you think?

We can do that to start with. If there are no problems in the field
with it, I don't see any problems in principle.

> If we anyway are going to add cut-off date to enable runtime PM we
> should expect that the hardware is also capable of doing so (and if not
> we can always blacklist the exceptions).

Sounds reasonable.

>> The kernel should power stuff down not wait for the user to run powertop,
>> At least for the GPU it's in the area of 8W of power, and I've got the
>> GPU drivers doing this themselves,
>>
>> I could have the GPU driver call runtime allow for it's host bridge I suppose,
>> if we insist on the userspace cares, but I'd prefer not doing so.
>>
>> > I think we need to add corresponding call to pm_runtime_forbid() in
>> > pcie_portdrv_remove().
>>
>> Yes most likely.
>
> BTW, I can add both calls to the next version of PCIe runtime PM patches
> if you are OK with that, and all agree this is a good idea.

That would be fine by me.

Thanks,
Rafael

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-03-14 14:21    [W:0.058 / U:0.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site