From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753653Ab0CQIWq (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:22:46 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f219.google.com ([209.85.220.219]:61988 "EHLO mail-fx0-f219.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753554Ab0CQIWn (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:22:43 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=W/JNIC+n1gSL9P+VuQJtZOyjp54JdpYa8zB5tpoka25CfKAHu6nvTDOiJxdUOKX7/+ foXr+KeKnNYpKYo4Xr+NRBt0MojUiuQTTrucHm2SMjl8YirhbuBORSZyK2/ik4xUc0ys cHyXwis1GWL2ol8ghpHxg+L9MZtyxzOZgxZfI= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <71cd59b01003120049n1a9fbbf3qfd37f14f241a7f64@mail.gmail.com> <71cd59b01003130116h4265769v9e1dae95361629ce@mail.gmail.com> <71cd59b01003152354h64d18c0fq2083f60e399313c8@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:22:40 +0100 Message-ID: <71cd59b01003170122h1ef767a3ma186e7ef278d73a1@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Possible bug in eeepc-laptop.c - EeePC 900 From: Corentin Chary To: Fabio Comolli Cc: ACPI mailing list , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Len Brown Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Fabio Comolli wrote: > Hi. > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Corentin Chary > wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Fabio Comolli wrote: >>> Well, I'm confused. >>> >>> I rebooted with the "vanilla" eeepc-laptop.c and I'm sorry to say that >>> the situation it's not like the one I described in the post I wrote 2 >>> days ago. Actually the situation with the patch reverted is the same I >>> have with the patch applied. >>> >>> What I mean is that if I boot on AC power /proc/cpuinfo always reports >>> 900MHz and 1800 bogomips. It I boot on battery /proc/cpuinfo always >>> reports 630MHz and 1260 bogomips. Plugging / unplugging the AC does >>> not change the situation. Only reboot does. >>> >>> But the cpufv interface does indeed seem to work, as glxgears and >>> stellarium show the frame rate change accordingly to the powersave / >>> performance selection. >>> >>> So my question is: what does really the cpufv interface do? Is it >>> supposed to change the processor frequency? Or does it change >>> something else? >>> >>> And if the answer to the latest question is affirmative, why >>> /proc/cpuinfo seems to ignore it? >>> >>> Sorry for the confusion. >>> Regards, >>> Fabio >>> >> >> Here is what I can read in your DSDT: >> >> When INIT or _Q31 is called, the bios check the the battery is >> present, and call FSBA(0) or FSBA(1). >> _Q31 seems to be called by an hotkey, could you run "acpi_listen" and >> search the hotkey that generate 0x50 or 0x51 ? > > This is the output requested. > > hotkey ATKD 0000002e 00000000 > hotkey ATKD 0000002f 00000000 > hotkey ATKD 00000030 00000000 > hotkey ATKD 00000012 00000000 > hotkey ATKD 00000013 00000000 > hotkey ATKD 00000014 00000000 > hotkey ATKD 00000015 00000000 > hotkey ATKD 00000010 00000000 > button/sleep SLPB 00000080 00000001 > hotkey ATKD 00000010 00000001 None of thesed generate 0x50 or 0x51, may be somehting else :/ -- Corentin Chary http://xf.iksaif.net