Hi, On 3/14/22 16:32, Mark Pearson wrote: > > > 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. So I've been thinking a bit more about this while I was outside for some fresh air. First of all let me say that I do agree that the having in essence 6 different profiles thing needs a kernel solution. What I'm not entirely sure about is if this needs to be something generic, with a new userspace-API as you proposed in the v1 RFC, or if it would be better to just solve this in thinkpad_acpi.c . Now that I've a better grasp of the problem, I'll start a new email thread on this tomorrow with all the various take-holders in the Cc to try and answer that question. It probably is a good idea to wait with doing a v2 of the RFC until we've had that discussion... Regards, Hans
