Hi all, sorry for response delay I'm very busy at work this period A common interface is surely the best solution, especially because it allows to standardize the user-space tools and maybe to integrate its with desktop, like Bastien is doing with gnome-power-profiles-daemon or like the similar tool plasma-pstate. I think we should keep separate performance and thermal profiles thus leaving the possibility of setting a thermal profile independently of the performance profile and vice versa. Hp implements up to 4 thermal profiles (apparently the same ones that implement dell), my patch implements the first 3 profiles which are the ones supported by my hardware. 1. HP Recommended -> fan stay off and start at low~medium speed when necessary 2. Performance -> fan stay off and start at medium~hight speed when necessary 3. Cool -> fan stay off and start at medium~hight speed when necessary 4. Quiet -> fan should stay off and start at very low speed if necessary for each profile the firmware set also a OEM variable to select DPTF profile with the adeguate power limit. combining these profiles with the performance profiles it is possible to obtain the desired performance according to the needs of the moment e.g. For gaming purpose when the CPU and GPU share the thermal budget, in this case the best solution is to set thermal profile to performance to maximize the heat dissipation and the p-state profile to powersave, in this way during loadings the cpu gain a performance boost that allow to reduce loading time, instead, during gameplay the cpu performance will be limited in favor of the GPU allowing the maximum framerate to be reached. (feral had to handle it for its gamemode tool: https://github.com/FeralInteractive/gamemode/pull/179) Another opposed particular case could be thermal profile set to quiet and p-state set to performance, usefull for example to maximizze cpu performance in silent ambient room like a library, obviously for CPU-only intesive tasks the best solution is to set either thermal and performance profile to performance. Basically there are infinite combinations that can be made to obtain the best configuration for each situation, to allow this a common interface should offer a possibility to: - Define the list of thermal profiles separately from the performance ones - Eventually define a list of on/off attributes (useful for lenovo lap_mode?) - Provide a description of them - Switching between thermal profiles regardless of the performance profile A possible solution could be a "slider like" interface for performance level and a list of thermal profile. On Thu, 2020-09-17 at 13:22 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Elia, Mark, I assume that both of you want to get your patches for this > upstream sooner, rather then later. But I think we should put them on > hold until we have an agreement on a shared userspace API for this. > I could maybe update the patch to expose the interface via debugfs like Mark wants to do with lenovo driver and make update later when a common interface will be fully defined. I would prefer the patch to be merged (at lest the init function) because it fix the thermald behaviour whit default thermal profile on fresh boot. In the next days I will update the patch and send it in other thread to discuss and evaluate a merge in two steps Best Regards Elia
