Adding dri-devel@ to CC.
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 22:44:24 +0100
> With some progress in PowerManagement support (there's a patch
> nearly done for reading the P-tables, written mostly by xexaxo,
> derived from thunderbirds nvclock, with 0x40 adjustments from
> myself) in my opinion it's time to think about the user aspect of
> this. My personal idea for GPU scaling was similar to that of CPU
> scaling in appearance eventually. When you look at the
> cpufreq-applet for Gnome, you see the choice between every
> supported CPU speed, and an option for Automatic scaling. To make
> an application like this possible nouveau needs to communicate
> with users. I was thinking a procfs or sysfs node for outputting
> a readable table with possible modes like:
> 03: CPU=135MHz,Shdr=135MHz,Mem=135MHz,Vlt=0.8V,Fan=80%;
> the node name would be something like pm_supported. Another node
> named pm_current could output the current mode (for instance 03),
> and be writable to set the desired mode. Mode numbers will be the
> identifier given by pm_supported, found in the powermode table. A
> third node would then be required to set auto scaling on or off
> (called pm_auto ?). All those nodes could eventually be placed in
> a separate subdirectory (pm?)
> 1. joi pointed out that procfs is deprecated, and I should use
> sysfs instead. There are two reasons to use procfs:
> - DRM has a pointer to the right DRM subfolder (/proc/drm/<card
> number>) which can be obtained by drm_device.control->proc_root.
> number>Ofcourse, if there's
> something similar for sysfs available, then there's no problem.
> Otherwise procfs simply saves a lot of hassle as long as DRM
> still promotes procfs to the device drivers.
> - sysfs was designed for "one value per node". The output of the
> pm_supported node would be an entire table. Is this on par with
> the design of sysfs? So: procfs or sysfs?
> 2. It sounds sensible to me to have one scaling algorithm
> (whatever that may become... first things first). When you can
> scale you can have the maximum performance as soon as you need
> it... so the aim should be maximum powersaving at all time,
> without sacrificing on performance. Agreed, or should there be
> several "auto" modes for different situations?
I recall someone (you?) saying this is only for testing for
now, and the proper user interface can be done later. In
any case, I'd like to suggest discussing it on dri-devel@,
since there are other drivers wanting to expose similar
Hopefully people working on power management interfaces
on intel and radeon can comment on this, like is there
an agreed user interface design yet.
btw. I think max powersaving and no performance loss are
mutually exclusive, since changing power modes is not
free nor instantenous. Or is it? How much of the card
you need to stop to change clocks and volts? Do you
need to sync to vblank to prevent visual glitches?