Hi, On 3/14/22 15:43, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi Mario, > > On 3/14/22 14:39, Limonciello, Mario wrote: >> [Public] >> >>>> >>>> I cycled through a few different implementations but came down on what I >>>> proposed. I considered 6 values - but I don't think that makes sense and >>>> makes it overall more complicated than it needs to be and less flexible. >>> >>> Ah, so to be clear, my 2 scenarios above were theoretical scenarios, >>> because I'm wondering how the firmware API here actually looks like, >>> something which so far is not really clear to me. >>> >>> When you say that you considered using 6 values, then I guess that >>> the firmware API actually offers 6 values which we can write to a single slot: >>> ac-low-power,dc-lowpower,ac-balanced,dc-balanced,ac-performance,dc- >>> performance >>> >>> ? >>> >>> But that is not what the RFC patch that started this thread shows at all, >>> the API to the driver is totally unchanged and does not get passed >>> any info on ac/dc selection ? So it seems to me that the ACPI API Linux >>> uses for this writes only 1 of 3 values to a single slot and the EC automatically >>> switches between say ac-balanced and dc-balanced internally. >>> >>> IOW there really being 2 differently tuned balance-profiles is not visible to >>> the OS at all, this is handled internally inside the EC, correct ? >>> >> >> No - on Lenovo's platform there are 6 different profiles that can be selected >> from the kernel driver. 3 are intended for use on battery, 3 are intended for >> use on AC. > > Ah, I already got that feeling from the rest of the thread, so I reread > Mark's RFC again before posting my reply today and the RFC looked like > the same 3 profiles were being set and the only functionality added > was auto profile switching when changing between AC/battery. > > Thank you for clarifying this. Having 6 different stories > indeed is a very different story. > >>> Otherwise I would expect the kernel internal driver API to also change and >>> to also see a matching thinkpad_acpi patch in the RFC series? >> >> The idea I see from Mark's thread was to send out RFC change for the platform profile >> and based on the direction try to implement the thinkpad-acpi change after that. >> >> Because of the confusion @Mark I think you should send out an RFC v2 with thinkpad acpi >> modeled on top of this the way that you want. > > I fully agree and since you introduce the concept of being on AC/battery to the > drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c cpde, please change the > profile_set and profile_get function prototypes in struct platform_profile_handler > to also take a "bool on_battery" extra argument and use that in the thinkpad > driver to select either the ac or the battery tuned low/balanced/performance > profile. > > And please also include an update to Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-platform_profile > in the next RFC. > > Also notice how I've tried to consistently use AC/battery in my last reply, > DC really is not a good term for "on battery". AC also is sort of dubious > for "connected to an external power-supply" but its use for that is sorta > common and it is nice and short. One last request for the v2 RFC, please also Cc Bastien Nocera, so that he can take a look at the proposed uapi changes from the userspace side of things. Regards, Hans
