From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Zhang Rui Subject: Re: [RFC] the generic thermal layer enhancement Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 13:54:44 +0800 Message-ID: <1338443684.1472.237.camel@rui.sh.intel.com> References: <1338367742.1472.128.camel@rui.sh.intel.com> <20120530125035.GA17379@srcf.ucam.org> <1338436491.1472.223.camel@rui.sh.intel.com> <20120531035821.GA1587@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:8495 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752861Ab2EaFxS (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 May 2012 01:53:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20120531035821.GA1587@srcf.ucam.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Jean Delvare , "Brown, Len" , linux-pm , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , amit.kachhap@linaro.org On =E5=9B=9B, 2012-05-31 at 04:58 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:54:51AM +0800, Zhang Rui wrote: > > On =E4=B8=89, 2012-05-30 at 13:50 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > The existing algorithm provides a generic mechanism for=20 > > > balancing performance and thermal output, with the only requireme= nt=20 > > > being that the platform provide constants that represent the heat= ing and=20 > > > cooling properties of the system. > > >=20 > > I'm not sure if this could work on their platforms. So I'm just loo= king > > for an easier way to handle this, i.e. make generic thermal layer > > simple, and provide the flexibility for platform drivers to do thei= r own > > tricks. >=20 > If it's not possible for a platform to use the existing generic appro= ach=20 > then we should certainly provide a way for them to handle that, but=20 > first I'd like to see evidence that it's impossible for them to use t= he=20 > existing generic approach. This kind of conversation is better with r= eal=20 > world examples :) Agreed. Amit, do you have any update on this? :) >=20 > > > > G4. Multiple passive trip points > > >=20 > > > It would be good to have an explanation of the use case here. If = it's=20 > > > acceptable for the device to be at the lower passive trip point, = why are=20 > > > we slowing it down at all? > > >=20 > > acceptable does not equal comfortable? > > Say, I'd like to use the computer at 30C skin temperature. > > I'm okay with the temperature at 50C, but it would be nice if it ca= n be > > lower, even if the system would be slower, but not too slow (T-stat= e). > > If the temperature is higher than 60, it is not usable for me, I'll= wait > > for a while, the system can do everything they want do cool the sys= tem > > down (but hibernate/shutdown would be not a good idea at this time > > because it is hot enough for some hardware damage). >=20 > Ok, that seems reasonable. >=20 Great! thanks, rui -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html