[PATCH i-g-t, v4] tests/intel/xe_pm: Add tests for suspend without display

[Jani Nikula]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2024, "Sundaresan, Sujaritha" <sujaritha.sundaresan at intel.com> wrote:
> On 8/28/2024 2:16 PM, Sundaresan, Sujaritha wrote:
>>
>> On 8/27/2024 6:24 PM, Gupta, Anshuman wrote:
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Sousa, Gustavo <gustavo.sousa at intel.com>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 6:18 PM
>>>> To: De Marchi, Lucas <lucas.demarchi at intel.com>; Gupta, Anshuman
>>>> <anshuman.gupta at intel.com>; Sundaresan, Sujaritha
>>>> <sujaritha.sundaresan at intel.com>
>>>> Cc: Kamil Konieczny <kamil.konieczny at linux.intel.com>; igt-dev@
>>>> <lists.freedesktop.org igt-dev at lists.freedesktop.org>; Piecielska, 
>>>> Katarzyna
>>>> <katarzyna.piecielska at intel.com>
>>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH i-g-t, v4] tests/intel/xe_pm: Add tests for 
>>>> suspend without
>>>> display
>>>>
>>>> Quoting Gupta, Anshuman (2024-08-27 06:29:06-03:00)
>>>>
>>>>> For s0ix DC9 is the pre-requisite rather then DC6, DC9 does not have
>>>>> any depende ncy on DMC.
>>>> Maybe DC6 and DC9 are pre-requisites for different S0ix sub-states?
>>>>
>>>> - BSpec 68851 says that DC6 is requirement for S0ix.
>>>> - BSpec 68857 says that DC9 supports S0ix with more power savings than
>>>>    DC6.
>>> DC6 is pre-requisite for runtime s0ix with PSR Display On use cases. 
>>> Which is irrelevant for system wide suspend.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Anshuman.
>>>> -- 
>>>> Gustavo Sousa
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Thanks for the comments. So if I have it right the only final change 
>> here is to switch the param to disable_display right ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Suja
>>
> Hi all,
>
> Gentle ping on the above question.

disable_display=1 will still keep running display suspend/resume
paths. You just have all connectors disconnected.

I'm not sure if you can really fully achieve the goal of testing
suspend/resume without display.


BR,
Jani.



-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel