From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan Jenkins Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/19] eeepc-laptop: support for super hybrid engine (SHE) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 12:51:20 +0100 Message-ID: <4A1A8638.2060105@tuffmail.co.uk> References: <45cb50e646d1560eff01c5ad0f0df3c7fd6148dd.1242453625.git.len.brown@intel.com> <71cd59b00905241023h6ecfa13axc2dc82863053cdc1@mail.gmail.com> <4A198401.3040003@tuffmail.co.uk> <200905251012.31526.corentin.chary@gmail.com> <4A1A685E.1070004@tuffmail.co.uk> <71cd59b00905250259n358cf58r837e01dc836e2c84@mail.gmail.com> <4A1A6DDD.3090202@tuffmail.co.uk> <71cd59b00905250419u4256446endef52672b7d5ab77@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ey-out-2122.google.com ([74.125.78.25]:40844 "EHLO ey-out-2122.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752220AbZEYLuo (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 May 2009 07:50:44 -0400 Received: by ey-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 9so783892eyd.37 for ; Mon, 25 May 2009 04:50:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <71cd59b00905250419u4256446endef52672b7d5ab77@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Corentin Chary Cc: Grigori Goronzy , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown Corentin Chary wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Alan Jenkins > wrote: > >> Corentin Chary wrote: >> >>> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Alan Jenkins >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Corentin Chary wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sunday 24 May 2009 19:29:37 Alan Jenkins wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Corentin Chary wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Alan Jenkins >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/16/09, Len Brown wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: Grigori Goronzy >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The older eeepc-acpi driver allowed to control the SHE performance >>>>>>>>> preset through a ACPI function for just this purpose. SHE underclocks >>>>>>>>> and undervolts the FSB and undervolts the CPU (at preset 2, >>>>>>>>> "powersave"), or slightly overclocks the CPU (at preset 0, >>>>>>>>> "performance"). Preset 1 is the default setting with default clocks and >>>>>>>>> voltage. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The new eeepc-laptop driver doesn't support it anymore. >>>>>>>>> The attached patch adds support for it to eeepc-laptop. It's very >>>>>>>>> straight-forward and almost trivial. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Grigori Goronzy >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Corentin Chary >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Len Brown >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, out of curiosity I tried this on my EeePC 701. I upgraded the >>>>>>>> BIOS to the latest version available a few months ago. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I find that the file is present and can successfully be read from. >>>>>>>> The file returns the value "513". If I write "1" to it, nothing >>>>>>>> happens. If I write "0" to it, the speakers start hissing and the >>>>>>>> file then returns the value "512". Writing "1" again gets it back to >>>>>>>> normal. There is no apparent effect on performance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is stupid, because we _do_ appear to check the BIOS supported >>>>>>>> features bitmask, but that's Asus firmware for you. Can you please >>>>>>>> add an extra test, so this file only allows reads or writes if the >>>>>>>> current value is 0 or 1? If you're quick you might slip it into -rc8 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> Hi, Can you try this patch ? It seems to works for me. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Thanks, it does make the interface less confusing. The behaviour (no >>>> performance change, hissing speakers) is the same. >>>> >>>> >>> It works on mine (original bios). But I don't know how to see if there >>> is a performance change. >>> Is there a quick cpu bench ? >>> >>> >> I used: >> >> time for {1..10000}; do echo -n; done >> >> It's a bit bogus - I expect it would show if my 630Mhz processor jumped >> to 900Mhz, but smaller changes might be lost in noise. >> >> suggests "time factor >> $[65863223*65863159]", which should be better. >> >> I think it's also significant that the current (630Mhz) setting is "1". >> I would expect "0" to be slower - but in the original 701 BIOS, 630Mhz >> is the slower of the two speeds, right? >> > > 1 - time factor: ~ 1.574s - default, seems to be 630Mhz > 0 - time factor: ~ 1.01s - seems to be 900 > > How illogical :-). Oh - I should have read the commit message, this is the expected order (and proper SHE just has the extra state: 2 / "performance"). Perhaps we should DMI-blacklist 701s with newer BIOS versions, so we only provide the performance control when it is available from the BIOS setup screen. The specific version is well-documented e.g. on forum.eeeuser.com. Thanks for your time Alan