| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <14312000-6369-4669-bcc9-4fa2abb5a98f@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2023 12:57:33 -0500
From: "Mark Pearson" <mpearson-lenovo@...ebb.ca>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org"
<platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
"Hans de Goede" <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
ibm-acpi-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
"Limonciello, Mario" <mario.limonciello@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: Add support for improved performance mode
Hi Ilpo,
On Thu, Nov 9, 2023, at 5:10 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2023, Mark Pearson wrote:
>
>> Some new Thinkpads have a new improved performance mode available.
>> Add support to make this mode usable.
>>
>> To avoid having to create a new profile, just use the improved performance
>> mode in place of the existing performance mode, when available.
>>
>> Tested on T14 AMD G4 AMD.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mark Pearson <mpearson-lenovo@...ebb.ca>
>> ---
>> drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
>> index ad460417f901..eba701ab340e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
>> @@ -10136,6 +10136,7 @@ static struct ibm_struct proxsensor_driver_data = {
>>
>> #define DYTC_CMD_SET 1 /* To enable/disable IC function mode */
>> #define DYTC_CMD_MMC_GET 8 /* To get current MMC function and mode */
>> +#define DYTC_CMD_UP_CAP 0xA /* To get Ultra-performance capability */
>> #define DYTC_CMD_RESET 0x1ff /* To reset back to default */
>>
>> #define DYTC_CMD_FUNC_CAP 3 /* To get DYTC capabilities */
>> @@ -10152,6 +10153,7 @@ static struct ibm_struct proxsensor_driver_data = {
>>
>> #define DYTC_FUNCTION_STD 0 /* Function = 0, standard mode */
>> #define DYTC_FUNCTION_CQL 1 /* Function = 1, lap mode */
>> +#define DYTC_FUNCTION_TMS 9 /* Function = 9, TMS mode */
>> #define DYTC_FUNCTION_MMC 11 /* Function = 11, MMC mode */
>> #define DYTC_FUNCTION_PSC 13 /* Function = 13, PSC mode */
>> #define DYTC_FUNCTION_AMT 15 /* Function = 15, AMT mode */
>> @@ -10163,11 +10165,14 @@ static struct ibm_struct proxsensor_driver_data = {
>> #define DYTC_MODE_MMC_LOWPOWER 3 /* Low power mode */
>> #define DYTC_MODE_MMC_BALANCE 0xF /* Default mode aka balanced */
>> #define DYTC_MODE_MMC_DEFAULT 0 /* Default mode from MMC_GET, aka balanced */
>> +#define DYTC_NOMODE 0xF /* When Function does not have a mode */
>>
>> #define DYTC_MODE_PSC_LOWPOWER 3 /* Low power mode */
>> #define DYTC_MODE_PSC_BALANCE 5 /* Default mode aka balanced */
>> #define DYTC_MODE_PSC_PERFORM 7 /* High power mode aka performance */
>>
>> +#define DYTC_UP_SUPPORT_BIT 8 /* Bit 8 - 1 = supported, 0 = not */
>
> It would be preferrable to comment what is supported rather than have a
> comment like above which isn't particularly helpful.
OK - so just have:
#define DYTC_UP_SUPPORT_BIT 8 /* Ultra-performance (TMS) mode support */
Or...reading ahead in the review this should actually be
#define DYTC_UP_SUPPORT_BIT BIT(8) /* Ultra-performance (TMS) mode support */
>
>> #define DYTC_ERR_MASK 0xF /* Bits 0-3 in cmd result are the error result */
>> #define DYTC_ERR_SUCCESS 1 /* CMD completed successful */
>>
>> @@ -10185,6 +10190,7 @@ static enum platform_profile_option dytc_current_profile;
>> static atomic_t dytc_ignore_event = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
>> static DEFINE_MUTEX(dytc_mutex);
>> static int dytc_capabilities;
>> +static bool dytc_ultraperf_cap; /* ultra performance capable */
>> static bool dytc_mmc_get_available;
>> static int profile_force;
>>
>> @@ -10355,6 +10361,17 @@ static int dytc_profile_set(struct platform_profile_handler *pprof,
>> if (err)
>> goto unlock;
>>
>> + /* Set TMS mode appropriately (enable for performance), if available */
>> + if (dytc_ultraperf_cap) {
>> + int cmd;
>> +
>> + cmd = DYTC_SET_COMMAND(DYTC_FUNCTION_TMS, DYTC_NOMODE,
>> + profile == PLATFORM_PROFILE_PERFORMANCE);
>> + err = dytc_command(cmd, &output);
>> + if (err)
>> + return err;
>> + }
>> +
>> if (dytc_capabilities & BIT(DYTC_FC_MMC)) {
>> if (profile == PLATFORM_PROFILE_BALANCED) {
>> /*
>> @@ -10429,6 +10446,7 @@ static struct platform_profile_handler dytc_profile = {
>> static int tpacpi_dytc_profile_init(struct ibm_init_struct *iibm)
>> {
>> int err, output;
>> + int cmd;
>>
>> /* Setup supported modes */
>> set_bit(PLATFORM_PROFILE_LOW_POWER, dytc_profile.choices);
>> @@ -10484,6 +10502,16 @@ static int tpacpi_dytc_profile_init(struct ibm_init_struct *iibm)
>> dbg_printk(TPACPI_DBG_INIT, "No DYTC support available\n");
>> return -ENODEV;
>> }
>> + err = dytc_command(DYTC_CMD_UP_CAP, &output);
>> + dytc_ultraperf_cap = output & BIT(DYTC_UP_SUPPORT_BIT) ? true : false;
>
> It would be better to put this BIT() into the define itself and remove
> _BIT from the name because it doesn't really add that much information.
> Since you're assigning to bool, ? true : false construct is not required
> but implicit cast will handle it for you. So in the end, this line would
> be:
>
> dytc_ultraperf_cap = output & DYTC_UP_SUPPORT;
Agreed. I will make that change.
I'll wait and see if there is any more feedback and then do that with a v2 patch.
>
> Looking into the driver a bit more, there are a few other defines which
> could also move BIT() from the code into defines. Please tell if you're
> going to look at those because if not, I might try to make the patches.
Happy to look at doing that as I'm playing around with this driver anyway.
Thanks for the review!
Mark
Powered by blists - more mailing lists