Re: [PATCH 1/4] thinkpad_acpi: Add support for controlling chargethresholds
From: Julian Andres Klode
Date: Mon Dec 30 2013 - 19:01:30 EST
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 08:40:45PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2013, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Dec 2013, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 02:56:30PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > > > Add support for battery charge thresholds in new Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge
> > > > ThinkPads. Based on the unofficial documentation in tpacpi-bat.
> > > >
> > > > The threshold files support the values '0' for the controller's default,
> > > > and 1-99 as percentages. Values outside of that range are rejected. The
> > > > behaviour of '0' might be confusing, especially for the stop case where
> > > > it basically seems to mean '100'.
> > >
> > > Thinking more about this, it might make more sense to simply accept a 100
> > > value and not accept a 0 value in the stop case (I tried multiple times to
> > > write 100 to a stop_charge_thresh file, because that feels more natural).
> > >
> > > Having a 0 mean 100% is just odd. So stop_charge_thresh should simply
> > > accepts integer values in the range [1, 100] (and start_charge_thresh
> > > should continue accept [0, 99], as 0 really means 0 there).
> > Indeed. Just return EINVAL for a stop threshold of 0.
> Actually, a stop threshold below the current start threshold is also invalid
> and what happens when you try that is implementation-specific. And the
> kernel is not the only party who can change the thresholds, so you have to
> read them if you really need to know the current value.
That's true. The problem is that if we forbid such values, the writes
will need to be done in a specific order. Let's say I have a system
and I want to change it to
If we return -EINVAL on a case stop < start, the only way to do this
is setting stop first and then start, because if we wrote start first,
then we would have: start > stop (because 60 > 50). But the error
message when doing it the wrong way around will not be very helpful
and I think it is confusing.
We might be able to work around this by simple setting stop = start
if a new write causes the stop threshold to be below the start
threshold. But this also seems ugly.
> To correct myself, stop threshold being zero is also implementation-
> specific. on thinkpads it is not valid.
Writing the value 0 effectively means setting the stop threshold to 100%.
The EC itself does not accept the value 100. I don't know why they choose
to implement it this way. So the code should not accept 0 as an input
value and replace an input of 100 with 0.
The exact value returned by the ACPI call is 0x80000000, that is,
a signed 0 integer with sign bit set to 1. A set sign bit indicates
> For thinkpads, I believe the EC firmware changes the other threshold so that
> the boundary condition stop > start is always valid. But I never tried it
> with a direct EC write to validate this. If it becomes important, I can
> check -- but I'd still prefer to enforce sanity at the driver level just in
> case. Don't tempt the gremilins, for they live at boundary conditions and
> their sleep is light indeed.
It does not seem to do this here.
Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member
See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/.
Please do not top-post if possible.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/