From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755418Ab0CQWzt (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:55:49 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f212.google.com ([209.85.218.212]:61901 "EHLO mail-bw0-f212.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753879Ab0CQWzr (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:55:47 -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=AbBn1bqOVppGiEPNin35A+pT04LRg8ItWRC2pC7QFOhaJpWLac99v/J1bL51f7Gx9q Cka2GJQXn3kvZ9TYhK96YVZDxC05+il66fj1zKCXFkMAQDNUTGF90koqzpz3oWSt9tn6 f5FY5bgsPRG4yQIxhB2I8KDS5MLdwcCaIqMjs= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <71cd59b01003170122h1ef767a3ma186e7ef278d73a1@mail.gmail.com> References: <71cd59b01003120049n1a9fbbf3qfd37f14f241a7f64@mail.gmail.com> <71cd59b01003130116h4265769v9e1dae95361629ce@mail.gmail.com> <71cd59b01003152354h64d18c0fq2083f60e399313c8@mail.gmail.com> <71cd59b01003170122h1ef767a3ma186e7ef278d73a1@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 23:55:45 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Possible bug in eeepc-laptop.c - EeePC 900 From: Fabio Comolli To: Corentin Chary Cc: ACPI mailing list , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Len Brown Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Corentin Chary wrote: > 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 :/ > > Found it! Plugging the AC gives: ac_adapter AC0 00000080 00000001 battery BAT0 00000080 00000001 hotkey ATKD 00000050 00000002 And unplugging gives: battery BAT0 00000080 00000001 ac_adapter AC0 00000080 00000001 ac_adapter AC0 00000080 00000000 battery BAT0 00000080 00000001 hotkey ATKD 00000051 00000002 battery BAT0 00000080 00000001 ac_adapter AC0 00000080 00000000 However, the cpufv value is not affected at all. > > -- > Corentin Chary > http://xf.iksaif.net > Regards, Fabio