Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] acpi: platform_profile - Add Extreme profile option

[Mario Limonciello <superm1@kernel.org>]

On 11/10/25 5:14 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2025, Derek J. Clark wrote:
> 
>> Some devices, namely Lenovo Legion devices, have an "extreme" mode where
>> power draw is at the maximum limit of the cooling hardware. Add a new
>> "extreme" platform profile to properly reflect this operating mode.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Mario Limonciello (AMD) <superm1@kernel.org>
>> Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel) <rafael@kernel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Derek J. Clark <derekjohn.clark@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>   Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-platform-profile | 2 ++
>>   drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c                        | 1 +
>>   include/linux/platform_profile.h                       | 1 +
>>   3 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-platform-profile b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-platform-profile
>> index dc72adfb830a..9bee8deb4dc9 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-platform-profile
>> +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-platform-profile
>> @@ -23,6 +23,8 @@ Description:	This file contains a space-separated list of profiles supported
>>   					power consumption with a slight bias
>>   					towards performance
>>   		performance		High performance operation
>> +		extreme			Higher performance operation that may exceed
>> +					internal battery draw limits when on AC power
>>   		custom			Driver defined custom profile
>>   		====================	========================================
>>   
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c b/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c
>> index b43f4459a4f6..78da17e16d9b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c
>> @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ static const char * const profile_names[] = {
>>   	[PLATFORM_PROFILE_BALANCED] = "balanced",
>>   	[PLATFORM_PROFILE_BALANCED_PERFORMANCE] = "balanced-performance",
>>   	[PLATFORM_PROFILE_PERFORMANCE] = "performance",
>> +	[PLATFORM_PROFILE_EXTREME] = "extreme",
>>   	[PLATFORM_PROFILE_CUSTOM] = "custom",
>>   };
>>   static_assert(ARRAY_SIZE(profile_names) == PLATFORM_PROFILE_LAST);
>> diff --git a/include/linux/platform_profile.h b/include/linux/platform_profile.h
>> index a299225ab92e..2bf178bde2b5 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/platform_profile.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/platform_profile.h
>> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ enum platform_profile_option {
>>   	PLATFORM_PROFILE_BALANCED,
>>   	PLATFORM_PROFILE_BALANCED_PERFORMANCE,
>>   	PLATFORM_PROFILE_PERFORMANCE,
>> +	PLATFORM_PROFILE_EXTREME,
>>   	PLATFORM_PROFILE_CUSTOM,
>>   	PLATFORM_PROFILE_LAST, /*must always be last */
>>   };
>>
> 
> I wonder if "extreme" is the best name for this? Given the description you
> gave above, perhaps "max-power" would be more descriptive (and we already
> have "low-power" so it kind of feels fitting the theme too).
> 
> I don't have strong opinion on this so if you guys feel this suggestion
> would not make things better, feel free to voice it. :-)
> 

I don't feel strongly here, either sound find to me.