[Intel-gfx] [RFC] drm/i915/psr: Remove PSR active flag from debugfs

[Rodrigo Vivi]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:20:58AM -0700, Souza, Jose wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 21:42 -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> > The flag becomes misleading with flips and cursor moves not modifying
> > it's
> > state as HW takes care of exiting PSR (when HW tracking is enabled)
> > 
> > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan at intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 1 -
> >  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > index c4cc8fef11a0..416dcb703e23 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > @@ -2565,7 +2565,6 @@ static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct seq_file
> > *m, void *data)
> >  
> >  	mutex_lock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
> >  	seq_printf(m, "Enabled: %s\n", yesno((bool)dev_priv-
> > >psr.enabled));
> > -	seq_printf(m, "Active: %s\n", yesno(dev_priv->psr.active));
> 
> Maybe would be better rename to something else, like "Hardware
> activated/enabled".

Actually is the other way around. But this just show us how confusing
it is. So,

Acked-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>

> 
> >  	seq_printf(m, "Busy frontbuffer bits: 0x%03x\n",
> >  		   dev_priv->psr.busy_frontbuffer_bits);
> >  	seq_printf(m, "Re-enable work scheduled: %s\n",