https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217696 --- Comment #12 from Mario Limonciello (AMD) (mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx) --- > I've no problems with frequency scaling. Also it looks like the OP uses > amd-pstate and I use acpi-cpufreq since amd-pstate is not enabled by default. > Under the specific AMD driver idle power consumption without RyzenAdj remains > very equally high. amd-pstate vs acpi-cpufreq is actually irrelevant for the issue at hand. From your debug log I believe the issue is that for your machine a component outside of the Linux kernel is supposed to influence power targets. It's either the EC or something that runs in the APU's TEE environment. More on this later in my response. > Is the second patch queued for 6.5? I wouldn't want to compile the kernel > just yet but I can check Fedora's 6.5-rc3. No it's not in 6.5 right now. Hans is OOO, but I expect will be queued for a future 6.5-rc when he returns. > Could you explain the nature of the second patch? From its description I > understood nothing at all. In Linux the static power slider (SPS) is exported from amd-pmf as an ACPI platform profile. Power-profiles daemon uses this to let you pick "Power saver", "balanced" or "performance" modes. Until that patch SPS is only exported if targets are adjustable directly via PMF driver. But your system advertises that power slider changes should notify the SBIOS because your system doesn't adjust targets via the PMF driver. > Does it fix (improve) very high idle power consumption? Why is it needed? I > don't think it'll help me break through the frequency wall my laptop's > firmware is imposing on me. I don't have visibility into your EC code, but if it's by EC the patch will fix it when you pick "power saver" or "performance" in power profiles daemon. If the EC doesn't do it, it will probably require some code that we'll be releasing later for some other PMF features. -- You may reply to this email to add a comment. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug.
