On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 10:32:10 -0600 Mario Limonciello <mario.limoncie...@amd.com> wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 10:13, Harry Wentland wrote: > > > > > > On 2024-02-16 11:11, Harry Wentland wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 2024-02-16 10:42, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > >>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 09:33:47 -0500 > >>> Harry Wentland <harry.wentl...@amd.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 2024-02-16 03:19, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > >>>>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 10:28:35 -0500 > >>>>> Hamza Mahfooz <hamza.mahf...@amd.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> We want programs besides the compositor to be able to enable or disable > >>>>>> panel power saving features. > >>>>> > >>>>> Could you also explain why, in the commit message, please? > >>>>> > >>>>> It is unexpected for arbitrary programs to be able to override the KMS > >>>>> client, and certainly new ways to do so should not be added without an > >>>>> excellent justification. > >>>>> > >>>>> Maybe debugfs would be more appropriate if the purpose is only testing > >>>>> rather than production environments? > >>>>> > >>>>>> However, since they are currently only > >>>>>> configurable through DRM properties, that isn't possible. So, to remedy > >>>>>> that issue introduce a new "panel_power_savings" sysfs attribute. > >>>>> > >>>>> When the DRM property was added, what was used as the userspace to > >>>>> prove its workings? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I don't think there ever was a userspace implementation and doubt any > >>>> exists today. Part of that is on me. In hindsight, the KMS prop should > >>>> have never gone upstream. > >>>> > >>>> I suggest we drop the KMS prop entirely. > >>> > >>> Sounds good. What about the sysfs thing? Should it be a debugfs thing > >>> instead, assuming the below question will be resolved? > >>> > >> > >> > >> It's intended to be used by the power profiles daemon (PPD). I don't think > >> debugfs is the right choice. See > >> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/upower/power-profiles-daemon/-/commit/41ed5d33a82b0ceb7b6d473551eb2aa62cade6bc > >> > >>>> As for the color accuracy topic, I think it is important that compositors > >>>> can have full control over that if needed, while it's also important > >>>> for HW vendors to optimize for power when absolute color accuracy is not > >>>> needed. An average end-user writing code or working on their slides > >>>> would rather have a longer battery life than a perfectly color-accurate > >>>> display. We should probably think of a solution that can support both > >>>> use-cases. > >>> > >>> I agree. Maybe this pondering should start from "how would it work from > >>> end user perspective"? > >>> > >>> "Automatically" is probably be most desirable answer. Some kind of > >> > >> I agree > >> > >>> desktop settings with options like "save power at the expense of image > >>> quality": > >>> - always > >>> - not if watching movies/gaming > >>> - on battery > >>> - on battery, unless I'm watching movies/gaming > >>> - never > >>> > >> > >> It's interesting that you split out movies/gaming, specifically. AMD's > >> ABM algorithm seems to have considered movies in particular when > >> evaluating the power/fidelity trade-off. > >> > >> I wouldn't think consumer media is very particular about a specific > >> color fidelity (despite what HDR specs try to make you believe). Where > >> color fidelity would matter to me is when I'd want to edit pictures or > >> video. > >> > >> The "abm_level" property that we expose is really just that, a setting > >> for the strength of the power-savings effect, with 0 being off and 4 being > >> maximum strength and power saving, at the expense of fidelity. > >> > >> Mario's work is to let the PPD control it and set the ABM levels based on > >> the selected power profile: > >> 0 - Performance > >> 1 - Balance > >> 3 - Power > >> > >> And I believe we've looked at disabling ABM (setting it to 0) automatically > >> if we know we're on AC power. > >> > >>> Or maybe there already is something like that, and it only needs to be > >>> plumbed through? > >>> > >>> Which would point towards KMS clients needing to control it, which > >>> means a generic KMS prop rather than vendor specific? > >>> > >>> Or should the desktop compositor be talking to some daemon instead of > >>> KMS for this? Maybe they already are? > >>> > >> > >> I think the intention is for the PPD to be that daemon. Mario can > >> elaborate. > >> > > > > Some more details and screenshots on how the PPD is expected to work and > > look: > > https://linuxconfig.org/how-to-manage-power-profiles-over-d-bus-with-power-profiles-daemon-on-linux > > > > Right, thanks! > > The most important point is that the user indicates intent from the GUI. > The daemon orchestrates the various knobs to get that intent. > > It's intentionally very coarse - 3 power states. The policy of what to > do for those states is managed by the daemon. > > In the case of ABM it will only apply the policy if the daemon detects > the system is on battery. > Sounds like sysfs is the best option, and it should never have been a KMS property, indeed. Thanks, pq
pgpjEPpS02t6p.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
