On Mon, Aug 30 2021 at 10:20:57 +1200, Luke Jones <luke@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30 2021 at 08:55:17 +1200, Luke Jones <luke@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Sun, Aug 29 2021 at 08:18:01 -0700, Guenter Roeck
<linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 8/29/21 3:03 AM, Luke Jones wrote:
On Sun, Aug 29 2021 at 11:57:55 +0200, Hans de Goede
<hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Luke,
On 8/29/21 9:14 AM, Luke D. Jones wrote:
Add support for custom fan curves found on some ASUS ROG
laptops.
- V1
+ Initial patch work
- V2
+ Don't fail and remove wmi driver if error from
asus_wmi_evaluate_method_buf() if error is -ENODEV
- V3
+ Store the "default" fan curves
+ Call throttle_thermal_policy_write() if a curve is erased
to ensure
that the factory default for a profile is applied again
- V4
+ Do not apply default curves by default. Testers have found
that the
default curves don't quite match actual no-curve behaviours
+ Add method to enable/disable curves for each profile
- V5
+ Remove an unrequired function left over from previous
iterations
+ Ensure default curves are applied if user writes " " to a
curve path
+ Rename "active_fan_curve_profiles" to
"enabled_fan_curve_profiles" to
better reflect the behavious of this setting
+ Move throttle_thermal_policy_write_*pu_curves() and rename
to
fan_curve_*pu_write()
+ Merge fan_curve_check_valid() and fan_curve_write()
+ Remove some leftover debug statements
- V6
+ Refactor data structs to store array or u8 instead of
strings.
This affects the entire patch except the enabled_fan_curves
block
+ Use sysfs_match_string in enabled_fan_curve block
+ Add some extra comments to describe things
+ Allow some variation in how fan curve input can be formatted
+ Use SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2_RW() to reduce the amount of lines
per
fan+profile combo drastically
Thank you for your continued work on this. I read in the
discussin of v5
that you discussed using the standard auto_point#_pwm,
auto_point#_temp
pairs. I see here that you have decided to not go that route, may
I ask
why ?
Sure, primary reason is because the RPM for the fans is in
percentage so it didn't really make sense to me to use that
format.
Also if the max for that is 255 then I'd need to introduce scaling
to make match what the ACPI method expects (max 100). But
yeah, auto_point#_pwm changes the meaning.
Bad argument. That is true for other controllers as well. You could
just scale it up and down as needed.
The whole point of an ABI is that it is standardized.
If others would [be permitted to] follow your line of argument,
we would not have a useful ABI because "my chip provides/needs
data in some other format".
Guenter
Understood. But lets see if I understand fully:
The key part is "pwmX_auto_pointN_temp and pwmX_auto_pointN_pwm",
with X being a profile, and N the point in the curve graph. If I
use this format I have:
- 3 profiles
- each profile has two fans
- each fan has 8 points on it
- each point has 2 integers
so that makes for a total of 96 individual sysfs paths. Is that
really okay? And where would the new paths god?
- Under /sys/devices/platform/asus-nb-wmi/ still, or
- /sys/devices/platform/asus-nb-wmi/hwmon/ ?
I'm currently using SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2_RW with index = profile, nr
= fan. If there weren't profiles involved then I could see it being
easily achieved with that.. Maybe I could use the index(profile)
with a mask to get the fan number.
I've done all the groundwork for it at least, so it can certainly be
done. My only worry is that because of the sheer number of sysfs
paths being added (96) it could become unwieldy to use.
Could I use the existing method + the above?
I've had a bit of a think after morning coffee and I think there is
another way to do this:
- CPU Fan = pwm1_auto_pointN_pwm + pwm1_auto_pointN_temp
- GPU Fan = pwm2_auto_pointN_pwm + pwm2_auto_pointN_temp
for example. So we're not breaking the meaning of anything or making
things obtuse and complex.
Ending up with:
/* CPU */
// (name, function, fan, point)
static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2_RW(pwm1_auto_point1_temp, fan_curve, 1,
0);
static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2_RW(pwm1_auto_point2_temp, fan_curve, 1,
1);
static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2_RW(pwm1_auto_point3_temp, fan_curve, 1,
2);
static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2_RW(pwm1_auto_point4_temp, fan_curve, 1,
3);
static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2_RW(pwm1_auto_point5_temp, fan_curve, 1,
4);
static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2_RW(pwm1_auto_point6_temp, fan_curve, 1,
5);
static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2_RW(pwm1_auto_point7_temp, fan_curve, 1,
6);
static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2_RW(pwm1_auto_point8_temp, fan_curve, 1,
7);
static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2_RW(pwm1_auto_point1_pwm, fan_curve, 1, 0);
static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2_RW(pwm1_auto_point2_pwm, fan_curve, 1, 1);
static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2_RW(pwm1_auto_point3_pwm, fan_curve, 1, 2);
static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2_RW(pwm1_auto_point4_pwm, fan_curve, 1, 3);
static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2_RW(pwm1_auto_point5_pwm, fan_curve, 1, 4);
static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2_RW(pwm1_auto_point6_pwm, fan_curve, 1, 5);
static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2_RW(pwm1_auto_point7_pwm, fan_curve, 1, 6);
static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2_RW(pwm1_auto_point8_pwm, fan_curve, 1, 7);
/* and the same for GPU fan */
But because we still have 3 profiles to consider, I would propose
that the settings be show/store dependant on the profile that the
machine is in, e.g, internally show/store to correct profile via
checking current profile number active.
I do need some suggestions on what I see as an issue though:
(1)
Given that it now becomes difficult to write all the settings at
once, at what point should I attempt to write the "block" to the
device? Write out for every change?
(2)
Also given the above, how do I reasonably check the user isn't trying
to create an invalid graph? E.g, lower fan speeds for higher
temperature? Check that a point isn't higher/lower than neighbouring
points and expect users to write the points in reverse?
I could maybe also have pwm1_enable and pwm2_enable. Perhaps set this
to false if a change is made, then only write out the full block if
it is then set to enabled. Further to this, if the user changes
profiles and the curves have been previously set and enabled, then
that curve is written out per usual.
Looking forward to some guidance on this. I'll try making a start on
what I've proposed above for now.
Many thanks,
Luke.
I have completed the above now. So I'll now complete testing and then
submit v7. What a journey, learning a lot.
Cheers!
