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: Tue, 26 May 2009 18:43:28 +0100 Message-ID: <4A1C2A40.4080007@tuffmail.co.uk> 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> <20090526172910.GA4653@blackheart> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f168.google.com ([209.85.220.168]:48441 "EHLO mail-fx0-f168.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755107AbZEZRnb (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 May 2009 13:43:31 -0400 Received: by fxm12 with SMTP id 12so2230577fxm.37 for ; Tue, 26 May 2009 10:43:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20090526172910.GA4653@blackheart> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Jenkins , Corentin Chary , Grigori Goronzy , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown Francesco Lattanzio wrote: > 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. > My BIOS is the same though, version 1302. I think the only other possibilities are that my machine is just broken, or Asus changed the hardware at some point.