From: "Mark Pearson" <mpearson-lenovo@squebb.ca>
To: "Mario Limonciello" <superm1@kernel.org>,
"Shyam Sundar S K" <Shyam-sundar.S-k@amd.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
"Hans de Goede" <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>,
"Luke D . Jones" <luke@ljones.dev>
Cc: "platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org"
<platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
"Derek J . Clark" <derekjohn.clark@gmail.com>,
"Antheas Kapenekakis" <lkml@antheas.dev>,
me@kylegospodneti.ch, "Denis Benato" <benato.denis96@gmail.com>,
"Limonciello, Mario" <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add support for hidden choices to platform_profile
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 14:39:35 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <fcf58c76-2c0b-4892-96aa-c9b5b35c3e68@app.fastmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250228170155.2623386-1-superm1@kernel.org>
Hi Mario,
On Fri, Feb 28, 2025, at 12:01 PM, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
>
> When two drivers provide platform profile handlers but use different
> strings to mean (essentially) the same thing the legacy interface won't
> export them because it only shows profiles common to multiple drivers.
>
> This causes an unexpected behavior to people who have upgraded from an
> earlier kernel because if multiple drivers have bound platform profile
> handlers they might not be able to access profiles they were expecting.
>
> Introduce a concept of a "hidden choice" that drivers can register and
> the platform profile handler code will utilize when using the legacy
> interface.
>
> There have been some other attempts at solving this issue in other ways.
> This serves as an alternative to those attempts.
>
> Link:
> https://lore.kernel.org/platform-driver-x86/e64b771e-3255-42ad-9257-5b8fc6c24ac9@gmx.de/T/#t
> Link:
> https://lore.kernel.org/platform-driver-x86/CAGwozwF-WVEgiAbWbRCiUaXf=BVa3KqmMJfs06trdMQHpTGmjQ@mail.gmail.com/T/#m2f3929e2d4f73cc0eedd14738170dad45232fd18
> Cc: Antheas Kapenekakis <lkml@antheas.dev>
> Cc: "Luke D. Jones" <luke@ljones.dev>
>
> Mario Limonciello (3):
> ACPI: platform_profile: Add support for hidden choices
> platform/x86/amd: pmf: Add 'quiet' to hidden choices
> platform/x86/amd: pmf: Add balanced-performance to hidden choices
>
> drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c | 94 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/sps.c | 11 ++++
> include/linux/platform_profile.h | 3 +
> 3 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.43.0
The patches are all good - but my question is do we really need the whole hidden implementation bit?
If the options are not hidden, and someone chooses quiet or balanced-performance for the amd-pmf driver - does it really matter that it's going to do the same as low-power or performance?
So, same feedback as I had for Antheas's patches. I understand why this is being proposed but for me it is making things unnecessarily complicated.
My personal vote remains that the amd_pmf driver carries the superset to keep everyone happy (sorry - it sucks to be the CPU vendor that has to play nice with everyone).
Mark
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-28 19:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-28 17:01 Mario Limonciello
2025-02-28 17:01 ` [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: platform_profile: Add support for hidden choices Mario Limonciello
2025-02-28 17:15 ` Antheas Kapenekakis
2025-02-28 22:08 ` Kurt Borja
2025-03-01 3:19 ` Mario Limonciello
2025-03-01 11:06 ` Antheas Kapenekakis
2025-03-01 13:52 ` Mario Limonciello
2025-03-01 14:06 ` Antheas Kapenekakis
2025-03-01 16:03 ` Mario Limonciello
2025-03-01 16:15 ` Antheas Kapenekakis
2025-03-02 3:23 ` Mark Pearson
2025-02-28 17:01 ` [PATCH 2/3] platform/x86/amd: pmf: Add 'quiet' to " Mario Limonciello
2025-02-28 17:01 ` [PATCH 3/3] platform/x86/amd: pmf: Add balanced-performance " Mario Limonciello
2025-02-28 19:39 ` Mark Pearson [this message]
2025-02-28 19:44 ` [PATCH 0/3] Add support for hidden choices to platform_profile Mario Limonciello
2025-02-28 19:53 ` Antheas Kapenekakis
2025-02-28 19:56 ` Mario Limonciello
2025-02-28 20:03 ` Mark Pearson
2025-02-28 20:38 ` Derek John Clark
2025-03-01 11:09 ` Antheas Kapenekakis
2025-03-01 13:44 ` Mario Limonciello
2025-03-01 13:51 ` Antheas Kapenekakis
2025-03-04 16:22 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2025-03-04 19:59 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=fcf58c76-2c0b-4892-96aa-c9b5b35c3e68@app.fastmail.com \
--to=mpearson-lenovo@squebb.ca \
--cc=Shyam-sundar.S-k@amd.com \
--cc=benato.denis96@gmail.com \
--cc=derekjohn.clark@gmail.com \
--cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkml@antheas.dev \
--cc=luke@ljones.dev \
--cc=mario.limonciello@amd.com \
--cc=me@kylegospodneti.ch \
--cc=platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=superm1@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®