Am 26.10.24 um 12:59 schrieb Hans de Goede:
Hi,
On 26-Oct-24 12:45 PM, Mohamed Ghanmi wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 09:15:14PM +0200, Armin Wolf wrote:
When changing the thermal policy using the platform profile API,
a Vivobook thermal policy is stored in throttle_thermal_policy_mode.
However everywhere else a normal thermal policy is stored inside this
variable, potentially confusing the platform profile.
Fix this by always storing normal thermal policy values inside
throttle_thermal_policy_mode and only do the conversion when writing
the thermal policy to hardware.
Fixes: bcbfcebda2cb ("platform/x86: asus-wmi: add support for vivobook fan profiles")
Signed-off-by: Armin Wolf <W_Armin@xxxxxx>
---
drivers/platform/x86/asus-wmi.c | 64 +++++++++++----------------------
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
the original patch that i submitted did actually have the remapping
of the different fan profiles in the throttle_thermal_policy_write() methods
because it was the cleaner solution [1]. however after having a discussion with luke,
he shared that he might be planning to remove the throttle_thermal_policy sysfs interface
in favour of platform_profiles [2] because of a refactoring he had been working on.
currently to control fan profiles through this driver you could use
either /sys/devices/platform/asus-nb-wmi/throttle_thermal_policy
(redundant and might get removed in the future) or through platform profiles which is the
better way of doing things.
for the reasons mentionned above, I decided to keep
throttle_therma_policy_write() unchanged and to move the remapping logic
to the asus_wmi_platform_profile_set(). this adopts the approach of
having a logical mapping stored in asus_wmi struct that has to be
converted to a physical mapping whenever needed [3].
so, if luke thinks that this won't cause any merge conflicts with his
work [4] then i see no problem with this approach even though it might cause an
order change when calling throttle_thermal_policy_switch_next()
Talking about throttle_thermal_policy_switch_next() we also
have platform_profile_cycle() and since asus-wmi supports
platform-profiles now I'm wondering if it would not be better
to simply completely drop throttle_thermal_policy_switch_next()
and call platform_profile_cycle() instead?
This will also keep the cycle order the same for "normal" vs
vivo even after Armin's patch.
Anyways I'll go and apply patch 1/2 to pdx86/fixes since that one is
obviously correct and fixes th Lunar Lake performance issues.
And we can keep discussing what to do wrt 2/2 and maybe also drop
throttle_thermal_policy_switch_next() if favor of
platform_profile_cycle().
Regards,
Hans
Good idea, using platform_profile_cycle() would also solve a potential locking issue here.
Thanks,
Armin Wolf
Best Regards,
Mohamed G.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/platform-driver-x86/20240421194320.48258-2-mohamed.ghanmi@xxxxxxxxx/ # [1]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/platform-driver-x86/4de768c5-aae5-4fda-a139-a8b73c8495a1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ # [2]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/platform-driver-x86/ZnlEuiP4Dgqpf51C@laptop/ # [3]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/platform-driver-x86/20240930000046.51388-1-luke@xxxxxxxxxx/ # [4]
