linux-kernel - Re: Possible bug in eeepc-laptop.c

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b637ec0b1003171555j43a50997sb4f5a781b0037b0f@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 17 Mar 2010 23:55:45 +0100
From:	Fabio Comolli <fabio.comolli@...il.com>
To:	Corentin Chary <corentin.chary@...il.com>
Cc:	ACPI mailing list <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Possible bug in eeepc-laptop.c - EeePC 900

Hi

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Corentin Chary
<corentin.chary@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Fabio Comolli <fabio.comolli@...il.com> wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Corentin Chary
>> <corentin.chary@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Fabio Comolli <fabio.comolli@...il.com> wrote:
>>>> Well, I'm confused.
>>>>
>>>> I rebooted with the "vanilla" eeepc-laptop.c and I'm sorry to say that
>>>> the situation it's not like the one I described in the post I wrote 2
>>>> days ago. Actually the situation with the patch reverted is the same I
>>>> have with the patch applied.
>>>>
>>>> What I mean is that if I boot on AC power /proc/cpuinfo always reports
>>>> 900MHz and 1800 bogomips. It I boot on battery /proc/cpuinfo always
>>>> reports 630MHz and 1260 bogomips. Plugging / unplugging the AC does
>>>> not change the situation. Only reboot does.
>>>>
>>>> But the cpufv interface does indeed seem to work, as glxgears and
>>>> stellarium show the frame rate change accordingly to the powersave /
>>>> performance selection.
>>>>
>>>> So my question is: what does really the cpufv interface do? Is it
>>>> supposed to change the processor frequency? Or does it change
>>>> something else?
>>>>
>>>> And if the answer to the latest question is affirmative, why
>>>> /proc/cpuinfo seems to ignore it?
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for the confusion.
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Fabio
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here is what I can read in your DSDT:
>>>
>>> When INIT or _Q31 is called, the bios check the the battery is
>>> present, and call FSBA(0) or FSBA(1).
>>> _Q31 seems to be called by an hotkey, could you run "acpi_listen" and
>>> search the hotkey that generate 0x50 or 0x51 ?
>>
>> This is the output requested.
>>
>> hotkey ATKD 0000002e 00000000
>> hotkey ATKD 0000002f 00000000
>> hotkey ATKD 00000030 00000000
>> hotkey ATKD 00000012 00000000
>> hotkey ATKD 00000013 00000000
>> hotkey ATKD 00000014 00000000
>> hotkey ATKD 00000015 00000000
>> hotkey ATKD 00000010 00000000
>> button/sleep SLPB 00000080 00000001
>> hotkey ATKD 00000010 00000001
>
> None of thesed generate 0x50 or 0x51, may be somehting else :/
>
>

Found it!

Plugging the AC gives:

ac_adapter AC0 00000080 00000001
battery BAT0 00000080 00000001
hotkey ATKD 00000050 00000002

And unplugging gives:

battery BAT0 00000080 00000001
ac_adapter AC0 00000080 00000001
ac_adapter AC0 00000080 00000000
battery BAT0 00000080 00000001
hotkey ATKD 00000051 00000002
battery BAT0 00000080 00000001
ac_adapter AC0 00000080 00000000

However, the cpufv value is not affected at all.

>
> --
> Corentin Chary
> http://xf.iksaif.net
>

Regards,
Fabio
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/