linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] platform/x86: asus-wmi: Fix thermal profile handling

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

Message-ID: <0156ec27-e076-4c6e-9bad-b7d64bb08a59@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2024 11:53:53 +0200
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To: Armin Wolf <W_Armin@....de>, corentin.chary@...il.com, luke@...nes.dev,
 mohamed.ghanmi@...com.tn
Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com, ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com,
 Michael@...ronix.com, casey.g.bowman@...el.com,
 platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] platform/x86: asus-wmi: Fix thermal profile handling

Hi All,

On 25-Oct-24 9:15 PM, Armin Wolf wrote:
> When support for Vivobook fan profiles was added, two mistakes where
> made:
> 
> 1. throttle_thermal_policy_set_default() was not called anymore during
> probe.
> 
> 2. The new thermal profiles where used inconsistently.
> 
> This patch series aims to fix both issues. Compile-tested only.
> 
> Armin Wolf (2):
>   platform/x86: asus-wmi: Fix thermal profile initialization
>   platform/x86: asus-wmi: Fix inconsistent use of thermal policies

Taking another look at the vivobook stuff because of this series this
pre-existing code stands out to me:

static int fan_curve_get_factory_default(struct asus_wmi *asus, u32 fan_dev)
{
        struct fan_curve_data *curves;
        u8 buf[FAN_CURVE_BUF_LEN];
        int err, fan_idx;
        u8 mode = 0;

        if (asus->throttle_thermal_policy_dev)
                mode = asus->throttle_thermal_policy_mode;
        /* DEVID_<C/G>PU_FAN_CURVE is switched for OVERBOOST vs SILENT */
        if (mode == 2)
                mode = 1;
        else if (mode == 1)
                mode = 2;

Since the vivobook has silent and overboost swapped I wonder if we should
do this on vivobook to ?

Also note that patch 2/2 of this series impacts this code too. Until
now we were storing the swapped vivobook values in asus->throttle_thermal_policy_dev
and then here we are swapping them a second time, in essence using unswapped
non vivobook values here due to the double swapping.

Where as after Armin's changes from 2/2 we now store unswapped standard
asus laptop values in asus->throttle_thermal_policy_dev and swap them
here, using the same mode values as with normal asus laptops on vivobooks
now ( mode is swapped from non vivo throttle_thermal_policy_dev values).

Does anyone have any insight what we should do here ?

Regards,

Hans