On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 11:15:12AM +0100, Alan Jenkins wrote:
> Corentin Chary wrote:
> > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Alan Jenkins
> > <alan-jenkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Corentin Chary wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Alan Jenkins
> >>> <alan-jenkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Corentin Chary wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Alan Jenkins
> >>>>> <alan-jenkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Corentin Chary wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Sunday 24 May 2009 19:29:37 Alan Jenkins wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Corentin Chary wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Alan Jenkins
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> <sourcejedi.lkml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/09, Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> From: Grigori Goronzy <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The older eeepc-acpi driver allowed to control the SHE performance
> >>>>>>>>>>> preset through a ACPI function for just this purpose. SHE
> >>>>>>>>>>> underclocks
> >>>>>>>>>>> and undervolts the FSB and undervolts the CPU (at preset 2,
> >>>>>>>>>>> "powersave"), or slightly overclocks the CPU (at preset 0,
> >>>>>>>>>>> "performance"). Preset 1 is the default setting with default
> >>>>>>>>>>> clocks and
> >>>>>>>>>>> voltage.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The new eeepc-laptop driver doesn't support it anymore.
> >>>>>>>>>>> The attached patch adds support for it to eeepc-laptop. It's very
> >>>>>>>>>>> straight-forward and almost trivial.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Grigori Goronzy <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Corentin Chary <corentincj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi, out of curiosity I tried this on my EeePC 701. I upgraded the
> >>>>>>>>>> BIOS to the latest version available a few months ago.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I find that the file is present and can successfully be read from.
> >>>>>>>>>> The file returns the value "513". If I write "1" to it, nothing
> >>>>>>>>>> happens. If I write "0" to it, the speakers start hissing and the
> >>>>>>>>>> file then returns the value "512". Writing "1" again gets it back
> >>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> normal. There is no apparent effect on performance.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> This is stupid, because we _do_ appear to check the BIOS supported
> >>>>>>>>>> features bitmask, but that's Asus firmware for you. Can you please
> >>>>>>>>>> add an extra test, so this file only allows reads or writes if the
> >>>>>>>>>> current value is 0 or 1? If you're quick you might slip it into
> >>>>>>>>>> -rc8
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi, Can you try this patch ? It seems to works for me.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks, it does make the interface less confusing. The behaviour (no
> >>>>>> performance change, hissing speakers) is the same.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> It works on mine (original bios). But I don't know how to see if there
> >>>>> is a performance change.
> >>>>> Is there a quick cpu bench ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> I used:
> >>>>
> >>>> time for {1..10000}; do echo -n; done
> >>>>
> >>>> It's a bit bogus - I expect it would show if my 630Mhz processor jumped
> >>>> to 900Mhz, but smaller changes might be lost in noise.
> >>>>
> >>>> <http://pavelmachek.livejournal.com/77425.html> suggests "time factor
> >>>> $[65863223*65863159]", which should be better.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think it's also significant that the current (630Mhz) setting is "1".
> >>>> I would expect "0" to be slower - but in the original 701 BIOS, 630Mhz
> >>>> is the slower of the two speeds, right?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> 1 - time factor: ~ 1.574s - default, seems to be 630Mhz
> >>> 0 - time factor: ~ 1.01s - seems to be 900
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> How illogical :-). Oh - I should have read the commit message, this is the
> >> expected order (and proper SHE just has the extra state: 2 / "performance").
> >>
> >> Perhaps we should DMI-blacklist 701s with newer BIOS versions, so we only
> >> provide the performance control when it is available from the BIOS setup
> >> screen. The specific version is well-documented e.g. on forum.eeeuser.com.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Upgraded my 701 to latest bios 1302. Everything works fine.
> > I've got a 701 4G, yours is a 701SD ?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
>
> No, mine is a 701 4G. Weird.
>
> Alan
This patch also works for 1000H. However for 901 I received discordant reports -- maybe a BIOS upgrade could fix this issue.
Both 1000H and 901 have three possible configuration, with 0 the highest performant and 2 the lowest.
--
Francesco Lattanzio <franz.lattanzio@xxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
