Re: [PATCH] platform/surface: Add platform profile driver

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 2/11/21 5:34 PM, Maximilian Luz wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/11/21 5:31 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2/11/21 5:17 PM, Maximilian Luz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/11/21 4:56 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 2/8/21 10:38 PM, Maximilian Luz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/8/21 9:27 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>> +static int convert_ssam_to_profile(struct ssam_device *sdev, enum ssam_tmp_profile p)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +    switch (p) {
>>>>>>> +    case SSAM_TMP_PROFILE_NORMAL:
>>>>>>> +        return PLATFORM_PROFILE_QUIET;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    case SSAM_TMP_PROFILE_BATTERY_SAVER:
>>>>>>> +        return PLATFORM_PROFILE_LOW_POWER;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    case SSAM_TMP_PROFILE_BETTER_PERFORMANCE:
>>>>>>> +        return PLATFORM_PROFILE_BALANCED;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    case SSAM_TMP_PROFILE_BEST_PERFORMANCE:
>>>>>>> +        return PLATFORM_PROFILE_PERFORMANCE;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    default:
>>>>>>> +        dev_err(&sdev->dev, "invalid performance profile: %d", p);
>>>>>>> +        return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>> +    }
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure about the mapping which you have chosen here. I know that at least for
>>>>>> gnome there are plans to make this stuff available in the UI:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://gitlab.gnome.org/Teams/Design/settings-mockups/-/blob/master/power/power.png
>>>>>> http://www.hadess.net/2020/09/power-profiles-daemon-new-project.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for those links!
>>>>>  
>>>>>> Notice there are only 3 levels in the UI, which will primarily be mapped to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PLATFORM_PROFILE_LOW_POWER
>>>>>> PLATFORM_PROFILE_BALANCED
>>>>>> PLATFORM_PROFILE_PERFORMANCE
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (with fallbacks to say QUIET for LOW_POWER of there is no LOW_POWER, but that
>>>>>> mostly is something for userspace to worry about).
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. I was aware of Bastien's work
>>>>> towards implementing user-space support for this but I hadn't yet looked
>>>>> at it in detail (e.g. the "fallback to quiet" is new to me).
>>>>
>>>> Note that the fallback stuff would not apply here, since you do provide
>>>> all 3 of low-power, balanced and performance. But the current way gnome
>>>> will handle this means that it will be impossible to select "normal" from
>>>> the GNOME ui which feels wrong.
>>>>
>>>>>> And the power-profile-daemon will likely restore the last used setting on boot,
>>>>>> meaning with your mapping that it will always switch the profile away from
>>>>>> SSAM_TMP_PROFILE_NORMAL, which I assume is the default profile picked at boot ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Pretty much, yeah. AFAICT booting doesn't reset it, but hard-resetting
>>>>> the EC does. Same difference though.
>>>>>  
>>>>>> So ideally we would map PLATFORM_PROFILE_BALANCED (which will be the default
>>>>>> GNOME / power-profile-daemon setting) to SSAM_TMP_PROFILE_NORMAL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know the ABI docs say that drivers should try to use existing values, but
>>>>>> this seems like a good case to add a new value or 2 to the PLATFORM_PROFILE enum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> During the discussion the following 2 options were given because some devices
>>>>>> may have more then one balanced profile:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PLATFORM_PROFILE_BALANCED_LOW_POWER:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                    balanced-low-power:     Balances between low power consumption
>>>>>>                                            and performance with a slight bias
>>>>>>                                            towards low power
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PLATFORM_PROFILE_BALANCED_PERFORMANCE:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                    balanced-performance:   Balances between performance and low
>>>>>>                                            power consumption with a slight bias
>>>>>>                                            towards performance
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it would be better to add 1 or both of these, if we add both
>>>>>> we could e.g. do the following mappings:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SSAM_TMP_PROFILE_BATTERY_SAVER      ->  PLATFORM_PROFILE_LOW_POWER
>>>>>> SSAM_TMP_PROFILE_NORMAL             ->  PLATFORM_PROFILE_BALANCED_LOW_POWER
>>>>>> SSAM_TMP_PROFILE_BETTER_PERFORMANCE ->  PLATFORM_PROFILE_BALANCED_PERFORMANCE
>>>>>> SSAM_TMP_PROFILE_BEST_PERFORMANCE   ->  PLATFORM_PROFILE_PERFORMANCE
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or we could do:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SSAM_TMP_PROFILE_BATTERY_SAVER      ->  PLATFORM_PROFILE_LOW_POWER
>>>>>> SSAM_TMP_PROFILE_NORMAL             ->  PLATFORM_PROFILE_BALANCED
>>>>>> SSAM_TMP_PROFILE_BETTER_PERFORMANCE ->  PLATFORM_PROFILE_BALANCED_PERFORMANCE
>>>>>> SSAM_TMP_PROFILE_BEST_PERFORMANCE   ->  PLATFORM_PROFILE_PERFORMANCE
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure which is best, I hope you have a better idea of that then me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I might even be wrong here and NORMAL might really be more about being QUIET
>>>>>> then it really being BALANCED ? In which case the mapping is fine as is.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can only really speak on the behavior of my Surface Book 2. On that
>>>>> device, the CPU is passively cooled, but the discrete GPU is actively
>>>>> cooled, so I can actually only really talk about active cooling behavior
>>>>> for the dGPU.
>>>>>
>>>>> On that, at least, the normal (Windows calls this 'recommended') profile
>>>>> feels like it targets quiet operation. Using the dGPU with that profile
>>>>> pretty much ensures that the dGPU will be limited in performance by a
>>>>> thermal limiter (around 75°C to 80°C; at least it feels that way), while
>>>>> the fan is somewhat audible but definitely not at maximum speed.
>>>>> Changing the profile to any higher profile (Windows calls those 'better
>>>>> performance' and 'best performance'), the fan becomes significantly more
>>>>> audible. I'm not entirely sure if the performance increase can solely be
>>>>> attributed to cooling though.
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as I've heard, that behavior seems to be similar on other devices
>>>>> with fans for CPU cooling, but I can try to get some more feedback on
>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on all of this, I thought that this would most resemble a 'quiet'
>>>>> profile. But I'd also be fine with your second suggestion. Calling the
>>>>> last two options 'balanced performance' and 'performance' might be a bit
>>>>> closer to the Windows naming scheme. It doesn't seem like the normal
>>>>> profile does much power limiting in terms of actually capping the power
>>>>> limit of the dGPU, so I think calling this 'balanced' would also make
>>>>> sense to me, especially in light of Gnome's defaults.
>>>>
>>>> Ack.
>>>>
>>>> So that means that this is going to need to have a preparation patch
>>>> adding the 2 balanced variants which I mention above. Can you take care
>>>> of that in the next version?
>>>
>>> Sure. Already prepared a patch for the 'balanced-performance' one over at [1].
>>> Just needs some squashing and I can send in an updated series. Do you also want
>>> me to add the 'balanced-low-power' version? I'd have chosen 'balanced' and
>>> 'balanced-performance' in the new mapping, so there wouldn't be any driver
>>> right now using that.
>>
>> I see at [1] that for now you've just added 'balanced-performance' that is probably
>> best, since as you say atm there are no users for 'balanced-low-power' .
> 
> Perfect.
> 
>>
>>>> And since that prep. patch needs to go through Rafael's PM tree anyways,
>>>> maybe also throw in a patch to make ACPI_PLATFORM_PROFILE not user selectable
>>>> and use select on it in the thinkpad_acpi and ideapad_laptop drivers?
>>>
>>> There's also already one at [1] for that just waiting to be sent :)
>>
>> Nice, thank you!
>>
>>> [1]: https://github.com/linux-surface/kernel/commits/s/surface-platform-profile/next
>>
>> The platform-profile bits which you have here all look good to me.
> 
> Thanks, I'll try to send that and an updated registry series in later today.

Sounds good, note please add Rafael to the "To" list on the new platform-profile series
(I guess you would have anyways, but just making sure).

Regards,

Hans



>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static int convert_profile_to_ssam(struct ssam_device *sdev, enum platform_profile_option p)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +    switch (p) {
>>>>>>> +    case PLATFORM_PROFILE_LOW_POWER:
>>>>>>> +        return SSAM_TMP_PROFILE_BATTERY_SAVER;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    case PLATFORM_PROFILE_QUIET:
>>>>>>> +        return SSAM_TMP_PROFILE_NORMAL;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    case PLATFORM_PROFILE_BALANCED:
>>>>>>> +        return SSAM_TMP_PROFILE_BETTER_PERFORMANCE;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    case PLATFORM_PROFILE_PERFORMANCE:
>>>>>>> +        return SSAM_TMP_PROFILE_BEST_PERFORMANCE;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    default:
>>>>>>> +        /* This should have already been caught by platform_profile_store(). */
>>>>>>> +        WARN(true, "unsupported platform profile");
>>>>>>> +        return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>>>>>> +    }
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static int ssam_platform_profile_get(struct platform_profile_handler *pprof,
>>>>>>> +                     enum platform_profile_option *profile)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +    struct ssam_tmp_profile_device *tpd;
>>>>>>> +    enum ssam_tmp_profile tp;
>>>>>>> +    int status;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    tpd = container_of(pprof, struct ssam_tmp_profile_device, handler);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    status = ssam_tmp_profile_get(tpd->sdev, &tp);
>>>>>>> +    if (status)
>>>>>>> +        return status;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    status = convert_ssam_to_profile(tpd->sdev, tp);
>>>>>>> +    if (status < 0)
>>>>>>> +        return status;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    *profile = status;
>>>>>>> +    return 0;
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static int ssam_platform_profile_set(struct platform_profile_handler *pprof,
>>>>>>> +                     enum platform_profile_option profile)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +    struct ssam_tmp_profile_device *tpd;
>>>>>>> +    int tp;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    tpd = container_of(pprof, struct ssam_tmp_profile_device, handler);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    tp = convert_profile_to_ssam(tpd->sdev, profile);
>>>>>>> +    if (tp < 0)
>>>>>>> +        return tp;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    return ssam_tmp_profile_set(tpd->sdev, tp);
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static int surface_platform_profile_probe(struct ssam_device *sdev)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +    struct ssam_tmp_profile_device *tpd;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    tpd = devm_kzalloc(&sdev->dev, sizeof(*tpd), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>>>> +    if (!tpd)
>>>>>>> +        return -ENOMEM;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    tpd->sdev = sdev;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    tpd->handler.profile_get = ssam_platform_profile_get;
>>>>>>> +    tpd->handler.profile_set = ssam_platform_profile_set;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    set_bit(PLATFORM_PROFILE_LOW_POWER, tpd->handler.choices);
>>>>>>> +    set_bit(PLATFORM_PROFILE_QUIET, tpd->handler.choices);
>>>>>>> +    set_bit(PLATFORM_PROFILE_BALANCED, tpd->handler.choices);
>>>>>>> +    set_bit(PLATFORM_PROFILE_PERFORMANCE, tpd->handler.choices);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    platform_profile_register(&tpd->handler);
>>>>>>> +    return 0;
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static void surface_platform_profile_remove(struct ssam_device *sdev)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +    platform_profile_remove();
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static const struct ssam_device_id ssam_platform_profile_match[] = {
>>>>>>> +    { SSAM_SDEV(TMP, 0x01, 0x00, 0x01) },
>>>>>>> +    { },
>>>>>>> +};
>>>>>>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(ssam, ssam_platform_profile_match);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static struct ssam_device_driver surface_platform_profile = {
>>>>>>> +    .probe = surface_platform_profile_probe,
>>>>>>> +    .remove = surface_platform_profile_remove,
>>>>>>> +    .match_table = ssam_platform_profile_match,
>>>>>>> +    .driver = {
>>>>>>> +        .name = "surface_platform_profile",
>>>>>>> +        .probe_type = PROBE_PREFER_ASYNCHRONOUS,
>>>>>>> +    },
>>>>>>> +};
>>>>>>> +module_ssam_device_driver(surface_platform_profile);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@xxxxxxxxx>");
>>>>>>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Platform Profile Support for Surface System Aggregator Module");
>>>>>>> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>