Francesco Lattanzio wrote:
> 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.
>
My BIOS is the same though, version 1302. I think the only other
possibilities are that my machine is just broken, or Asus changed the
hardware at some point.
--
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
