Message-ID: <a0392146-b046-49bf-8444-7094edc82b83@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:55:12 +0200
From: Armin Wolf <W_Armin@....de>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
 Mohamed Ghanmi <mohamed.ghanmi@...com.tn>
Cc: corentin.chary@...il.com, luke@...nes.dev,
 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 2/2] platform/x86: asus-wmi: Fix inconsistent use of
 thermal policies

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@....de>
>>> ---
>>>   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@supcom.tn/ # [1]
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/platform-driver-x86/4de768c5-aae5-4fda-a139-a8b73c8495a1@app.fastmail.com/ # [2]
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/platform-driver-x86/ZnlEuiP4Dgqpf51C@laptop/ # [3]
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/platform-driver-x86/20240930000046.51388-1-luke@ljones.dev/ # [4]
>>
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists