On 3/4/25 02:38, Antheas Kapenekakis wrote:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 at 07:48, Mario Limonciello <superm1@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx> When two drivers don't support all the same profiles the legacy interface only exports the common profiles. This causes problems for cases where one driver uses low-power but another uses quiet because the result is that neither is exported to sysfs. If one platform profile handler supports quiet and the other supports low power treat them as the same for the purpose of the sysfs interface. Fixes: 688834743d67 ("ACPI: platform_profile: Allow multiple handlers") Reported-by: Antheas Kapenekakis <lkml@xxxxxxxxxxx> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/platform-driver-x86/e64b771e-3255-42ad-9257-5b8fc6c24ac9@xxxxxx/T/#mc068042dd29df36c16c8af92664860fc4763974b Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx> --- drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c b/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c index 2ad53cc6aae53..d9a7cc5891734 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c @@ -73,8 +73,20 @@ static int _store_class_profile(struct device *dev, void *data) lockdep_assert_held(&profile_lock); handler = to_pprof_handler(dev); - if (!test_bit(*bit, handler->choices)) - return -EOPNOTSUPP; + if (!test_bit(*bit, handler->choices)) { + switch (*bit) { + case PLATFORM_PROFILE_QUIET: + *bit = PLATFORM_PROFILE_LOW_POWER; + break; + case PLATFORM_PROFILE_LOW_POWER: + *bit = PLATFORM_PROFILE_QUIET; + break; + default: + return -EOPNOTSUPP; + } + if (!test_bit(*bit, handler->choices)) + return -EOPNOTSUPP; + } return handler->ops->profile_set(dev, *bit); } @@ -252,8 +264,16 @@ static int _aggregate_choices(struct device *dev, void *data) handler = to_pprof_handler(dev); if (test_bit(PLATFORM_PROFILE_LAST, aggregate)) bitmap_copy(aggregate, handler->choices, PLATFORM_PROFILE_LAST); - else + else { + /* treat quiet and low power the same for aggregation purposes */ + if (test_bit(PLATFORM_PROFILE_QUIET, handler->choices) && + test_bit(PLATFORM_PROFILE_LOW_POWER, aggregate)) + set_bit(PLATFORM_PROFILE_QUIET, aggregate); + else if (test_bit(PLATFORM_PROFILE_LOW_POWER, handler->choices) && + test_bit(PLATFORM_PROFILE_QUIET, aggregate)) + set_bit(PLATFORM_PROFILE_LOW_POWER, aggregate); bitmap_and(aggregate, handler->choices, aggregate, PLATFORM_PROFILE_LAST); + }So you end up showing both? If that's the case, isn't it equivalent to just make amd-pmf show both quiet and low-power? I guess it is not ideal for framework devices. But if asus devices end up showing both, then it should be ok for framework devices to show both. I like the behavior of the V1 personally.
No; this doesn't cause it to show both. It only causes one to show up. I confirmed it with a contrived situation on my laptop that forced multiple profile handlers that supported a mix.
# cat /sys/firmware/acpi/platform_profile* low-power low-power balanced performance # cat /sys/class/platform-profile/platform-profile-*/profile quiet quiet quiet quiet quiet quiet quiet quiet quiet quiet quiet quiet quiet quiet quiet quiet quiet quiet quiet quiet quiet quiet quiet quiet low-power
return 0; } @@ -305,6 +325,13 @@ static int _aggregate_profiles(struct device *dev, void *data) if (err) return err; + /* treat low-power and quiet as the same */ + if ((*profile == PLATFORM_PROFILE_LOW_POWER && + val == PLATFORM_PROFILE_QUIET) || + (*profile == PLATFORM_PROFILE_QUIET && + val == PLATFORM_PROFILE_LOW_POWER)) + *profile = val; + if (*profile != PLATFORM_PROFILE_LAST && *profile != val) *profile = PLATFORM_PROFILE_CUSTOM; else @@ -531,6 +558,11 @@ struct device *platform_profile_register(struct device *dev, const char *name, dev_err(dev, "Failed to register platform_profile class device with empty choices\n"); return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); } + if (test_bit(PLATFORM_PROFILE_QUIET, pprof->choices) && + test_bit(PLATFORM_PROFILE_LOW_POWER, pprof->choices)) { + dev_err(dev, "Failed to register platform_profile class device with both quiet and low-power\n"); + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); + }Can you avoid failing here? It caused a lot of issues in the past (the WMI driver bails). a dev_err should be enough. Since you do not fail maybe it can be increased to dev_crit. There is at least one driver that implements both currently, and a fix would have to precede this patch.
Oh, acer-wmi? Kurt; can you please comment? Are both simultaneous?
guard(mutex)(&profile_lock); -- 2.43.0
