Re: improve cx_lowest logic
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote: on 25/08/2012 13:52 Vitaly Magerya said the following: On 08/07/2012, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote: I would like to propose the following change for review and testing: http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/acpi_cpu_cx_lowest.diff On 13/07/2012, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote: Many thanks to all who reviewed and tested! I've just committed this change. Andriy, will this change be available in 9.1? I'm not seeing it in 9.1-RC1, and using my previous workarounds now that a proper solution is available is a pain. Vitaly, sorry for taking so long to reply. I've managed to sneak the Cmax commit into releng/9.1 branch, so it should appear in 9.1-RC2. Thank you for prodding me about that. Thanks so much! This should finally make Cx states work on my ThinkPad! I really appreciate it. Guess it's time to do my weekly upgrade of this system. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer E-mail: kob6...@gmail.com ___ freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-acpi-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: improve cx_lowest logic
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote: on 05/09/2012 18:17 Kevin Oberman said the following: Thanks so much! This should finally make Cx states work on my ThinkPad! I really appreciate it. Guess it's time to do my weekly upgrade of this system. I haven't sneaked in that other commit :-( Oops! :-( Oh, well. At least it should make it to /base/stable/9 soon. Right??? (I only run release/ or releng/ or for an occasional test.) -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer E-mail: kob6...@gmail.com ___ freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-acpi-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: improve cx_lowest logic
on 05/09/2012 19:23 Kevin Oberman said the following: On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote: on 05/09/2012 18:17 Kevin Oberman said the following: Thanks so much! This should finally make Cx states work on my ThinkPad! I really appreciate it. Guess it's time to do my weekly upgrade of this system. I haven't sneaked in that other commit :-( Oops! :-( Oh, well. At least it should make it to /base/stable/9 soon. Right??? (I only run release/ or releng/ or for an occasional test.) It's already in stable/9 :) -- Andriy Gapon ___ freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-acpi-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: improve cx_lowest logic
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote: on 05/09/2012 19:23 Kevin Oberman said the following: On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote: on 05/09/2012 18:17 Kevin Oberman said the following: Thanks so much! This should finally make Cx states work on my ThinkPad! I really appreciate it. Guess it's time to do my weekly upgrade of this system. I haven't sneaked in that other commit :-( Oops! :-( Oh, well. At least it should make it to /base/stable/9 soon. Right??? (I only run release/ or releng/ or for an occasional test.) It's already in stable/9 :) Ahh! I now see C3/109, but I see some strange behavior. When on AC power, only C1/1 and C2/104 are available, but cx_lowest is C3, even though C3 is not available. If I switch to battery, C1/1, C2/80 and C3/109 are available (???), but cx_lowest is set to C2. I find the Cx value sets a bit odd, but the setting of cx_lowest appears to be a bug, at least to me. I can manually set cx_lowest to C3 and I actually use C3. My suspicion is that there is either a race or a logic issue where x_lowest is reset to the lowest value before the available Cx values are set, so cx_lowest is always set the the lowest Cx state from the previous power configuration. (This is a guess, but it fits what I am seeing very well.) -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer E-mail: kob6...@gmail.com ___ freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-acpi-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: improve cx_lowest logic
on 05/09/2012 20:41 Kevin Oberman said the following: On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote: on 05/09/2012 19:23 Kevin Oberman said the following: On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote: on 05/09/2012 18:17 Kevin Oberman said the following: Thanks so much! This should finally make Cx states work on my ThinkPad! I really appreciate it. Guess it's time to do my weekly upgrade of this system. I haven't sneaked in that other commit :-( Oops! :-( Oh, well. At least it should make it to /base/stable/9 soon. Right??? (I only run release/ or releng/ or for an occasional test.) It's already in stable/9 :) Ahh! I now see C3/109, but I see some strange behavior. When on AC power, only C1/1 and C2/104 are available, but cx_lowest is C3, even though C3 is not available. If I switch to battery, C1/1, C2/80 and C3/109 are available (???), but cx_lowest is set to C2. I find the Cx value sets a bit odd, but the setting of cx_lowest appears to be a bug, at least to me. I can manually set cx_lowest to C3 and I actually use C3. My suspicion is that there is either a race or a logic issue where x_lowest is reset to the lowest value before the available Cx values are set, so cx_lowest is always set the the lowest Cx state from the previous power configuration. (This is a guess, but it fits what I am seeing very well.) Hmm, this looks like the older behavior. What revision are you at? Also, any local ACPI-related patches? -- Andriy Gapon ___ freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-acpi-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
