Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] ACPI: platform_profile: Treat quiet and low power the same

[Mario Limonciello]

On 3/4/2025 08:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 1:49 PM Mario Limonciello <superm1@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 3/4/25 02:38, Antheas Kapenekakis wrote:
> > > On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 at 07:48, Mario Limonciello <superm1@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > When two drivers don't support all the same profiles the legacy interface
> > > > only exports the common profiles.
> > > >
> > > > This causes problems for cases where one driver uses low-power but another
> > > > uses quiet because the result is that neither is exported to sysfs.
> > > >
> > > > If one platform profile handler supports quiet and the other
> > > > supports low power treat them as the same for the purpose of
> > > > the sysfs interface.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 688834743d67 ("ACPI: platform_profile: Allow multiple handlers")
> > > > Reported-by: Antheas Kapenekakis <lkml@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/platform-driver-x86/e64b771e-3255-42ad-9257-5b8fc6c24ac9@xxxxxx/T/#mc068042dd29df36c16c8af92664860fc4763974b
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >    drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > > >    1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c b/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c
> > > > index 2ad53cc6aae53..d9a7cc5891734 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c
> > > > @@ -73,8 +73,20 @@ static int _store_class_profile(struct device *dev, void *data)
> > > >
> > > >           lockdep_assert_held(&profile_lock);
> > > >           handler = to_pprof_handler(dev);
> > > > -       if (!test_bit(*bit, handler->choices))
> > > > -               return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > +       if (!test_bit(*bit, handler->choices)) {
> > > > +               switch (*bit) {
> > > > +               case PLATFORM_PROFILE_QUIET:
> > > > +                       *bit = PLATFORM_PROFILE_LOW_POWER;
> > > > +                       break;
> > > > +               case PLATFORM_PROFILE_LOW_POWER:
> > > > +                       *bit = PLATFORM_PROFILE_QUIET;
> > > > +                       break;
> > > > +               default:
> > > > +                       return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > +               }
> > > > +               if (!test_bit(*bit, handler->choices))
> > > > +                       return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > +       }
> > > >
> > > >           return handler->ops->profile_set(dev, *bit);
> > > >    }
> > > > @@ -252,8 +264,16 @@ static int _aggregate_choices(struct device *dev, void *data)
> > > >           handler = to_pprof_handler(dev);
> > > >           if (test_bit(PLATFORM_PROFILE_LAST, aggregate))
> > > >                   bitmap_copy(aggregate, handler->choices, PLATFORM_PROFILE_LAST);
> > > > -       else
> > > > +       else {
> > > > +               /* treat quiet and low power the same for aggregation purposes */
> > > > +               if (test_bit(PLATFORM_PROFILE_QUIET, handler->choices) &&
> > > > +                   test_bit(PLATFORM_PROFILE_LOW_POWER, aggregate))
> > > > +                       set_bit(PLATFORM_PROFILE_QUIET, aggregate);
> > > > +               else if (test_bit(PLATFORM_PROFILE_LOW_POWER, handler->choices) &&
> > > > +                        test_bit(PLATFORM_PROFILE_QUIET, aggregate))
> > > > +                       set_bit(PLATFORM_PROFILE_LOW_POWER, aggregate);
> > > >                   bitmap_and(aggregate, handler->choices, aggregate, PLATFORM_PROFILE_LAST);
> > > > +       }
> > >
> > > So you end up showing both? If that's the case, isn't it equivalent to
> > > just make amd-pmf show both quiet and low-power?
> > >
> > > I guess it is not ideal for framework devices. But if asus devices end
> > > up showing both, then it should be ok for framework devices to show
> > > both.
> > >
> > > I like the behavior of the V1 personally.
> >
> > No; this doesn't cause it to show both.  It only causes one to show up.
>
> Which may not be the one that was shown before IIUC and that's not good.
>
> What actually is the problem with the previous version?

Functionally?  Nothing.  This was to demonstrate the other way to do it 
that I preferred and get feedback on it as an alternative.

If you and Ilpo are happy with v1 that's totally fine and we can go with 
that.