[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jOR9=jA=8XASBpxJyXaB4TvXmxcZQWq1qUgq1J4h_tEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2025 15:12:32 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Armin Wolf <W_Armin@....de>
Cc: rafael@...nel.org, rui.zhang@...el.com, lenb@...nel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ACPI: thermal: Properly support the _SCP control method
On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 1:20 AM Armin Wolf <W_Armin@....de> wrote:
>
> Am 10.04.25 um 18:54 schrieb Armin Wolf:
>
> > The ACPI specification defines an interface for the operating system
> > to change the preferred cooling mode of a given ACPI thermal zone.
> > This interface takes the form of a special ACPI control method called
> > _SCP (see section 11.4.13 for details) and is already supported by the
> > ACPI thermal driver.
> >
> > However this support as many issues:
> >
> > - the kernel advertises support for the "3.0 _SCP Extensions" yet the
> > ACPI thermal driver does not support those extensions. This may
> > confuse the ACPI firmware.
> >
> > - the execution of the _SCP control method happens after the driver
> > retrieved the trip point values. This conflicts with the ACPI
> > specification:
> >
> > "OSPM will automatically evaluate _ACx and _PSV objects after
> > executing _SCP."
> >
> > - the cooling mode is hardcoded to active cooling and cannot be
> > changed by the user.
> >
> > Those issues are fixed in this patch series. In the end the user
> > will be able to tell the ACPI firmware wether he prefers active or
> > passive cooling. This setting will also be interesting for
> > applications like TLP (https://linrunner.de/tlp/index.html).
> >
> > The whole series was tested on various devices supporting the _SCP
> > control method and on a device without the _SCP control method and
> > appears to work flawlessly.
>
> Any updates on this? I can proof that the new interface for setting the cooling mode
> works. Additionally the first two patches fix two issues inside the underlying code
> itself, so having them inside the mainline tree would be beneficial to users.
Sure.
I'm going to get to them next week, probably on Monday.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists