On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Alan Jenkins
<alan-jenkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
Maybe it's because I tested my patch with a 2.6.28 kernel.
I should try with a git kernel.
--
Corentin Chary
http://xf.iksaif.net - http://uffs.org
--
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
