On 2022-03-14 12:56, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 3/14/22 16:32, Mark Pearson wrote: >> >> >> On 2022-03-14 11:31, Hans de Goede wrote: >>> 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. >>> >> Ack - will do. > > So I've been thinking a bit more about this while I was outside for some > fresh air. > > First of all let me say that I do agree that the having in essence 6 > different profiles thing needs a kernel solution. > > What I'm not entirely sure about is if this needs to be something > generic, with a new userspace-API as you proposed in the v1 RFC, > or if it would be better to just solve this in thinkpad_acpi.c . > > Now that I've a better grasp of the problem, I'll start a new email > thread on this tomorrow with all the various take-holders in the Cc > to try and answer that question. > > It probably is a good idea to wait with doing a v2 of the RFC until > we've had that discussion... > No problem - and thanks! I'll hold off until we have a better idea where we are going. If having some example code is useful though just let me know Mark
