galp5 profiles and no longer require all profile attributes to be set

[curiousercreative]

Fixes #210

Observations from running these profiles on an i7 galp5 w/o dGPU:

• performance mode will allow for indefinite turbo boost up to all-core 4.1GHz, but thermally limited
• allowing temps to exceed 95C seems to trigger some cooldown period
• setting pl2 seems to disable or shorten the pl2 boost duration such that the performance profile is useless
• it seems sufficient to not define pl1 or pl2 at all and just let thermal limiting handle everything

[curiousercreative]

@jackpot51 thanks for the feedback, updated with your suggestions and tested on my galp5.

[jacobgkau]

Before changes, constraint_0_power_limit_uw was always 28000000 and constraint_1_power_limit was always 51000000 on galp5. After changes, constraint_1 still doesn't change, but constraint_0 gets set to 12000000 in battery, 28000000 in balanced, and 40000000 in performance.

While stressing the galp5, I observed an energy rate of 66W (which then dropped to 52W after a few minutes) in performance. Switching to battery caused a dramatic decrease in energy rate to 19W, increasing the estimated remaining battery time from 49 minutes to 2.2 hours. Switching back to performance brought the energy rate back up. This seems to indicate that the options are working as intended. (Before the change, the rate was around 39W in performance and 28W in battery, not as effective.)

On lemp9, both power limits are still set when switching profiles; on gaze15, both limits are still left unchanged. General regression testing passed.

[ZeddieXX]

I just want to clarify, the truly broken experience seem to be the Battery Mode. When set to Battery Mode and CPU is at high utilization, it starts at 2.4 GHz, but then slowly ramps down to 218 MHz! (2.2x multiplier).

I don't think that was intended. If the CPU can clock down to 2.2x (I didn't think that was possible, per Intel's spec minimum is 4x), it should only do so at or near idle, not when there is load. I would also suggest 4x as the minimum multiplier since it may take some time for CPU to ramp up to even update the screen when bringing up the Activities view (using the Super button).

[jackpot51]

Thanks for that, it should be easy to adjust. I will make a PR soon.

[curiousercreative]

@jackpot51 for my own curiosity, why would it be a bad idea to maintain the same pl1 (40) for all profiles and just vary the thermal limit?

[jackpot51]

Mainly to prevent runaway thermal issues that would cause "sputtering", similar to what @ZeddieXX is experiencing but worse.

It would run 40W until it hits the thermal limit, which would happen very quickly. Then it would stall and fall down to very low wattage. Then it cools and hits 40W again, the cycle repeating.