From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Francesco Lattanzio Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/19] eeepc-laptop: support for super hybrid engine (SHE) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 19:29:10 +0200 Message-ID: <20090526172910.GA4653@blackheart> References: <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> <4A1A8638.2060105@tuffmail.co.uk> <71cd59b00905260312h1673589doac918a6a298e55a2@mail.gmail.com> <4A1BC130.9020201@tuffmail.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.158]:58340 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753860AbZEZR2c (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 May 2009 13:28:32 -0400 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id d23so985392fga.17 for ; Tue, 26 May 2009 10:28:32 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A1BC130.9020201@tuffmail.co.uk> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Jenkins Cc: Corentin Chary , Grigori Goronzy , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown , Ahmad Abdel-Yaman On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 11:15:12AM +0100, Alan Jenkins wrote: > Corentin Chary wrote: > > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Alan Jenkins > > wrote: > > > >> 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. > >> > >> > > > > Upgraded my 701 to latest bios 1302. Everything works fine. > > I've got a 701 4G, yours is a 701SD ? > > > > Thanks > > > > No, mine is a 701 4G. Weird. > > Alan This patch also works for 1000H. However for 901 I received discordant reports -- maybe a BIOS upgrade could fix this issue. Both 1000H and 901 have three possible configuration, with 0 the highest performant and 2 the lowest. -- Francesco Lattanzio