[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Fixed the review issues for pm_rc6_residency IGT case

2014-06-09 Thread Wendy Wang
Why need add rc6_residency_counter subtest case: RC6 feature support residency counter,from power consumption aspect, the counter closer to 1,the better.If the counter is < 0.9, the residency is not good and will impact power consumption value, if the counter is > 1, sysfs file is inaccurate. Att

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Fixed the review issues for pm_rc6_residency IGT case

2014-06-10 Thread Daniel Vetter
Hi Wendy, I think it's better to squash this into the original patch so I've reverted your patch from i-g-t for now. Also chatted with Ben on irc and he's ok with that. More comments after I've read your test more carefully: - Please don't use abort() or exit() anywhere in your test. Use the igt

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Fixed the review issues for pm_rc6_residency IGT case

2014-06-16 Thread Ben Widawsky
Hi Wendy. Daniel has reverted your original commit here: commit 35554a1bcaaea55c1cfa88c0176c58d2fb3b8013 Author: Daniel Vetter Date: Tue Jun 10 11:05:16 2014 +0200 Revert "Add rc6_residency_counter subtest" Note that I absolutely do not agree with the decision to revert your patch as was s

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Fixed the review issues for pm_rc6_residency IGT case

2014-06-16 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:43:30 -0700 Ben Widawsky wrote: > Hi Wendy. Daniel has reverted your original commit here: > commit 35554a1bcaaea55c1cfa88c0176c58d2fb3b8013 > Author: Daniel Vetter > Date: Tue Jun 10 11:05:16 2014 +0200 > > Revert "Add rc6_residency_counter subtest" > > Note that

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Fixed the review issues for pm_rc6_residency IGT case

2014-06-16 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:43:30 -0700 > Ben Widawsky wrote: > >> Hi Wendy. Daniel has reverted your original commit here: >> commit 35554a1bcaaea55c1cfa88c0176c58d2fb3b8013 >> Author: Daniel Vetter >> Date: Tue Jun 10 11:05:16 2014 +0200 >>

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Fixed the review issues for pm_rc6_residency IGT case

2014-06-16 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 04:36:47PM +0800, Wendy Wang wrote: > Why need add rc6_residency_counter subtest case: > RC6 feature support residency counter,from power consumption aspect, > the counter closer to 1,the better.If the counter is < 0.9, the residency > is not good and will impact power consu

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Fixed the review issues for pm_rc6_residency IGT case

2014-06-16 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 23:55:24 +0200 Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Jesse Barnes > wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:43:30 -0700 > > Ben Widawsky wrote: > > > >> Hi Wendy. Daniel has reverted your original commit here: > >> commit 35554a1bcaaea55c1cfa88c0176c58d2fb3b801

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Fixed the review issues for pm_rc6_residency IGT case

2014-06-17 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:03 AM, Jesse Barnes wrote: > So, what is revert-worthy in i-g-t? Open review items? Requests for > change? False test failures? False test passes? Crashing tests? I'd > vote for the latter 3 myself; did this fall into any of those > categories? Imo this isn't abou