On 2022-03-14 11:31, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 3/14/22 15:43, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hi Mario, >> >> On 3/14/22 14:39, Limonciello, Mario wrote: >>> [Public] >>> >>>>> >>>>> I cycled through a few different implementations but came down on what I >>>>> proposed. I considered 6 values - but I don't think that makes sense and >>>>> makes it overall more complicated than it needs to be and less flexible. >>>> >>>> Ah, so to be clear, my 2 scenarios above were theoretical scenarios, >>>> because I'm wondering how the firmware API here actually looks like, >>>> something which so far is not really clear to me. >>>> >>>> When you say that you considered using 6 values, then I guess that >>>> the firmware API actually offers 6 values which we can write to a single slot: >>>> ac-low-power,dc-lowpower,ac-balanced,dc-balanced,ac-performance,dc- >>>> performance >>>> >>>> ? >>>> >>>> But that is not what the RFC patch that started this thread shows at all, >>>> the API to the driver is totally unchanged and does not get passed >>>> any info on ac/dc selection ? So it seems to me that the ACPI API Linux >>>> uses for this writes only 1 of 3 values to a single slot and the EC automatically >>>> switches between say ac-balanced and dc-balanced internally. >>>> >>>> IOW there really being 2 differently tuned balance-profiles is not visible to >>>> the OS at all, this is handled internally inside the EC, correct ? >>>> >>> >>> No - on Lenovo's platform there are 6 different profiles that can be selected >>> from the kernel driver. 3 are intended for use on battery, 3 are intended for >>> use on AC. >> >> Ah, I already got that feeling from the rest of the thread, so I reread >> Mark's RFC again before posting my reply today and the RFC looked like >> the same 3 profiles were being set and the only functionality added >> was auto profile switching when changing between AC/battery. >> >> Thank you for clarifying this. Having 6 different stories >> indeed is a very different story. >> >>>> Otherwise I would expect the kernel internal driver API to also change and >>>> to also see a matching thinkpad_acpi patch in the RFC series? >>> >>> The idea I see from Mark's thread was to send out RFC change for the platform profile >>> and based on the direction try to implement the thinkpad-acpi change after that. >>> >>> Because of the confusion @Mark I think you should send out an RFC v2 with thinkpad acpi >>> modeled on top of this the way that you want. >> >> I fully agree and since you introduce the concept of being on AC/battery to the >> drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c cpde, please change the >> profile_set and profile_get function prototypes in struct platform_profile_handler >> to also take a "bool on_battery" extra argument and use that in the thinkpad >> driver to select either the ac or the battery tuned low/balanced/performance >> profile. >> >> And please also include an update to Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-platform_profile >> in the next RFC. >> >> Also notice how I've tried to consistently use AC/battery in my last reply, >> DC really is not a good term for "on battery". AC also is sort of dubious >> for "connected to an external power-supply" but its use for that is sorta >> common and it is nice and short. > > One last request for the v2 RFC, please also Cc Bastien Nocera, so that > he can take a look at the proposed uapi changes from the userspace side > of things. > Ack - will do. Thanks! Mark
