On 21.02.24 16:53, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> On 21.02.24 16:39, Alex Deucher wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 1:06 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
>> Leemhuis) wrote:
>>>
>>> On 20.02.24 21:18, Alex Deucher wrote:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 2:41 PM Romano
Back from vacations ...
On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 at 16:39, Alex Deucher wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 1:06 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
> Leemhuis) wrote:
> >
> > On 20.02.24 21:18, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 2:41 PM Romano wrote:
> > >>
> > >> If the increased
So that's what its about. Somehow I knew it all along. Not long ago, I
posted this on reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/183gye7/rx_6700xt_from_230w_to_capped_115w_at_only_10/
That was 3 months ago. Now suddenly AMD *require*("..hardware engineers
have explicitly pointed out that
[+Linus, as we seem to have reached the point in the discussion about
this regression where that is likely for the best.
And just for the record: I'm *not* doing that because I'm disappointed,
angry, or something. I can relate to the point that was made in the mail
I'm replying to. It's just that
On 21.02.24 16:39, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 1:06 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
> Leemhuis) wrote:
>>
>> On 20.02.24 21:18, Alex Deucher wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 2:41 PM Romano wrote:
If the increased low range is allowed via boot option, like in
He is my proposal:
On boot, read chip values into min_cap, default_cap, max_cap and set
them, satisfying AMD's requirement.
Do not introduce any new boot flags, keeping things simple.
Keep def_cap and max_cap readonly to protect HW.
Make min_cap readwrite: "echo 1234 > /sys/...min_cap".
No
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 1:06 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
Leemhuis) wrote:
>
> On 20.02.24 21:18, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 2:41 PM Romano wrote:
> >>
> >> If the increased low range is allowed via boot option, like in proposed
> >> patch, user clearly made an
Am 21.02.24 um 07:06 schrieb Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis):
On 20.02.24 21:18, Alex Deucher wrote:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 2:41 PM Romano wrote:
If the increased low range is allowed via boot option, like in proposed
patch, user clearly made an intentional decision. Undefined,
On 20.02.24 21:18, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 2:41 PM Romano wrote:
>>
>> If the increased low range is allowed via boot option, like in proposed
>> patch, user clearly made an intentional decision. Undefined, but won't
>> fry his hardware for sure. Undefined is also
For Windows, apps like MSI Afterburner is the one to try and what most
people go for. Using it in the past myself, I would be surprised if it
adhered to such a high min power cap. But even if it did, why would we
have to.
Relying on vendors cap in this case has already proven wrong because
This setting does not introduce stability problems or bugs.
Voltage/frequency ratio is dynamic relative to power cap, GPU auto
adjust to it. This is not like lowering voltage alone. By lowering GPU
power, it simply auto-adjust its frequency and voltage on the fly and
remain stable without
If the increased low range is allowed via boot option, like in proposed
patch, user clearly made an intentional decision. Undefined, but won't
fry his hardware for sure. Undefined is also overclocking in that
matter. You can go out of range with ratio of voltage vs frequency(still
within
On 20.02.24 16:27, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2/20/24 16:15, Alex Deucher wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:03 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
>> Leemhuis) wrote:
>>>
>>> On 20.02.24 15:45, Alex Deucher wrote:
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 9:47 AM Linux regression tracking
On 20.02.24 15:45, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 9:47 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
> Leemhuis) wrote:
>>
>> On 17.02.24 14:30, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 02:01:54PM +0100, Roman Benes wrote:
Minimum power limit on latest(6.7+) kernels is 190W for my
Hi,
On 2/20/24 16:15, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:03 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
> Leemhuis) wrote:
>>
>> On 20.02.24 15:45, Alex Deucher wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 9:47 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
>>> Leemhuis) wrote:
On 17.02.24
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 2:41 PM Romano wrote:
>
> If the increased low range is allowed via boot option, like in proposed
> patch, user clearly made an intentional decision. Undefined, but won't
> fry his hardware for sure. Undefined is also overclocking in that
> matter. You can go out of range
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:27 AM Hans de Goede wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2/20/24 16:15, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:03 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
> > Leemhuis) wrote:
> >>
> >> On 20.02.24 15:45, Alex Deucher wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 9:47 AM Linux
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 11:46 AM Romano wrote:
>
> For Windows, apps like MSI Afterburner is the one to try and what most
> people go for. Using it in the past myself, I would be surprised if it
> adhered to such a high min power cap. But even if it did, why would we
> have to.
>
> Relying on
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:42 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
Leemhuis) wrote:
>
>
>
> On 20.02.24 16:27, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2/20/24 16:15, Alex Deucher wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:03 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
> >> Leemhuis) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
Am 20.02.24 um 16:15 schrieb Alex Deucher:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:03 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
Leemhuis) wrote:
On 20.02.24 15:45, Alex Deucher wrote:
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 9:47 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
Leemhuis) wrote:
On 17.02.24 14:30, Greg KH wrote:
On
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:03 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
Leemhuis) wrote:
>
> On 20.02.24 15:45, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 9:47 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
> > Leemhuis) wrote:
> >>
> >> On 17.02.24 14:30, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 9:47 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
Leemhuis) wrote:
>
> On 17.02.24 14:30, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 02:01:54PM +0100, Roman Benes wrote:
> >> Minimum power limit on latest(6.7+) kernels is 190W for my GPU (RX 6700XT,
> >> mesa, archlinux) and I
Hello everyone,
patch by user @fililip was posted there, but not submitted:
/"I think I'd have to submit it to the linux kernel mailing list, which
I am kinda scared of . It could be better to submit that patch to Arch
Linux maintainers; they could include it in their kernel builds."/
Hello everyone,
patch by user @fililip was posted there, but not submitted:
"I think I'd have to submit it to the linux kernel mailing list, which I
am kinda scared of . It could be better to submit that patch to Arch
Linux maintainers; they could include it in their kernel builds."
On 17.02.24 14:30, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 02:01:54PM +0100, Roman Benes wrote:
>> Minimum power limit on latest(6.7+) kernels is 190W for my GPU (RX 6700XT,
>> mesa, archlinux) and I cannot get power cap as low as before(to 115W),
>> neither with Corectrl, LACT or TuxClocker and
25 matches
Mail list logo
