Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] platform/x86: acer-wmi: use an ACPI bitmap to set the platform profile choices

Kurt Borja
2025-01-09T15:34:43Z

On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 04:40:14PM +0530, Hridesh MG wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 7:21 PM Kurt Borja <kuurtb@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 02:15:26PM +0530, Hridesh MG wrote:
> > > Currently the choices for the platform profile are hardcoded. There is
> > > an ACPI bitmap accessible via WMI that specifies the supported profiles,
> > > use this bitmap to dynamically set the choices for the platform profile.
> > >
> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/platform-driver-x86/ecb60ee5-3df7-4d7e-8ebf-8c162b339ade@gmx.de/
> > > Signed-off-by: Hridesh MG <hridesh699@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> > > 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c
> > > index 7968fe21507b1cf28fdc575139057c795e6a873b..6c98c1bb3bdce6a7c6559f6da4ff3c6ce56b60e3 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c
> > > @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
> > > #include <linux/units.h>
> > > #include <linux/unaligned.h>
> > > #include <linux/bitfield.h>
> > > +#include <linux/bitmap.h>
> > >
> > > MODULE_AUTHOR("Carlos Corbacho");
> > > MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Acer Laptop WMI Extras Driver");
> > > @@ -127,6 +128,7 @@ enum acer_wmi_predator_v4_oc {
> > > enum acer_wmi_gaming_misc_setting {
> > > ACER_WMID_MISC_SETTING_OC_1 = 0x0005,
> > > ACER_WMID_MISC_SETTING_OC_2 = 0x0007,
> > > + ACER_WMID_MISC_SETTING_SUPPORTED_PROFILES = 0x000A,
> > > ACER_WMID_MISC_SETTING_PLATFORM_PROFILE = 0x000B,
> > > };
> > >
> > > @@ -1957,7 +1959,7 @@ static int
> > > acer_predator_v4_platform_profile_set(struct platform_profile_handler *pprof,
> > > enum platform_profile_option profile)
> > > {
> > > - int err, tp;
> > > + int max_perf, err, tp;
> > >
> > > switch (profile) {
> > > case PLATFORM_PROFILE_PERFORMANCE:
> > > @@ -1983,7 +1985,10 @@ acer_predator_v4_platform_profile_set(struct platform_profile_handler *pprof,
> > > if (err)
> > > return err;
> > >
> > > - if (tp != ACER_PREDATOR_V4_THERMAL_PROFILE_TURBO)
> > > + max_perf = find_last_bit(platform_profile_handler.choices,
> > > + PLATFORM_PROFILE_LAST);
> > > +
> > > + if (tp != max_perf)
> >
> > You can't directly compare `tp` and `max_perf`. ACER_PREDATOR_V4 values
> > may not match PLATFORM_PROFILE ones.
> >
> > It does in the case of PERFORMANCE and TURBO, but it does not in the
> > case of QUIET and BALANCED.
> >
> > I suggest you store the actual ACER_PREDATOR_V4 max_perf when setting up
> > the platform_profile.
> Ah this was quite a stupid mistake. I'm not sure why I even assumed
> both were equivalent. I have one doubt though, if i set it during
> profile setup, the code becomes quite verbose -
>
> /* Iterate through supported profiles in order of increasing
> performance */
> if (test_bit(ACER_PREDATOR_V4_THERMAL_PROFILE_ECO,
> &supported_profiles)) {
> set_bit(PLATFORM_PROFILE_LOW_POWER,
> platform_profile_handler.choices);
> max_perf = ACER_PREDATOR_V4_THERMAL_PROFILE_ECO;
> }
>
> if (test_bit(ACER_PREDATOR_V4_THERMAL_PROFILE_QUIET,
> &supported_profiles)) {
> set_bit(PLATFORM_PROFILE_QUIET,
> platform_profile_handler.choices);
> max_perf = ACER_PREDATOR_V4_THERMAL_PROFILE_QUIET;
> }
>
> if (test_bit(ACER_PREDATOR_V4_THERMAL_PROFILE_BALANCED,
> &supported_profiles)) {
> set_bit(PLATFORM_PROFILE_BALANCED,
> platform_profile_handler.choices);
> max_perf = ACER_PREDATOR_V4_THERMAL_PROFILE_BALANCED;
> }
>
> if (test_bit(ACER_PREDATOR_V4_THERMAL_PROFILE_PERFORMANCE,
> &supported_profiles)) {
> set_bit(PLATFORM_PROFILE_BALANCED_PERFORMANCE,
> platform_profile_handler.choices);
> max_perf = ACER_PREDATOR_V4_THERMAL_PROFILE_PERFORMANCE;
> }
>
> if (test_bit(ACER_PREDATOR_V4_THERMAL_PROFILE_TURBO,
> &supported_profiles)) {
> set_bit(PLATFORM_PROFILE_PERFORMANCE,
> platform_profile_handler.choices);
> max_perf = ACER_PREDATOR_V4_THERMAL_PROFILE_TURBO;
> }

Hi Hridesh,

It looks a bit verbose, but for me it's fine, it even caches the value.
If max_perf is a global variable now, rename it to something like
acer_predator_v4_max_perf.

>
> Is this fine? Maybe for readability's sake, I could lift it up into a
> different function, like what you did in the RFC patch. Btw, thanks a lot
> for the detailed reviews so far—they’ve been very helpful!

Glad I can help :)

~ Kurt

>
> --
> Thanks,
> Hridesh MG