[PATCH] drm/radeon/pm: autoswitch power state when in balanced mode

[Alex Deucher]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Lucas Stach <dev at lynxeye.de> wrote:
> Am Montag, den 24.10.2016, 12:41 -0400 schrieb Alex Deucher:
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Christian König
>> <christian.koenig at amd.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Am 23.10.2016 um 01:05 schrieb Lucas Stach:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > The current default of always using the performance power state
>> > > leads
>> > > to increased power consumption of mobile devices, which have a
>> > > dedicated
>> > > battery power state. Switch between the performance and battery
>> > > power
>> > > state automatically, dpending on the current AC power status,
>> > > when the
>> > > user asked for the balanced power state.
>> > >
>> > > The user can still override this logic by asking for the
>> > > performance
>> > > or battery power state explicitly.
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Lucas Stach <dev at lynxeye.de>
>> >
>> >
>> > Nice addition, the only thing I can of hand see is that you
>> > probably want to
>> > remove the "balanced states don't exist at the moment" comment when
>> > you
>> > actually implement them (or abuse them).
>> >
>> > Apart from that I'm not so deep into the PM stuff, so patch is only
>> > Acked-by: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>.
>>
>> IIRC, I had a similar patch years ago, and it was generally shot down
>> since it moved policy into the driver.  Also, certain userspace
>> packages like tlp do this already.  That said, I'm happy to apply it
>> if there are no objections.
>
> I can relate to that argument. But as there is an explicit "battery"
> power state that's a strong hint that the hardware is designed to use
> this state when running on battery power. This patch does not add any
> new policy, but merely changes the one already present in the kernel
> (clearly always using the "performance" power state in balanced mode
> already is a policy on its own).
>
> Also this patch doesn't prevent userspace to implement a different
> policy.
>
> I don't care deeply enough to try to convince anyone if there is
> objection to this patch, but I think driving the hardware in the
> designed way by default without the user needing to install additional
> tools is a good thing.

Applied.  Thanks!

Alex