[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] ACPI / CPPC: do not require the _PSD method when using CPPC
On 8/7/19 5:41 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 11:03:38AM -0600, Al Stone wrote:
>> According to the ACPI 6.3 specification, the _PSD method is optional
>> when using CPPC. The underlying assumption appears to be that each CPU
>> can change frequency independently from all other CPUs; _PSD is provided
>> to tell the OS that some processors can NOT do that.
>> However, the acpi_get_psd() function returns -ENODEV if there is no _PSD
>> method present, or an ACPI error status if an error occurs when evaluating
>> _PSD, if present. This essentially makes _PSD mandatory when using CPPC,
>> in violation of the specification, and only on Linux.
>> This has forced some firmware writers to provide a dummy _PSD, even though
>> it is irrelevant, but only because Linux requires it; other OSPMs follow
>> the spec. We really do not want to have OS specific ACPI tables, though.
>> So, correct acpi_get_psd() so that it does not return an error if there
>> is no _PSD method present, but does return a failure when the method can
>> not be executed properly. This allows _PSD to be optional as it should
>> be.
> Makes sense to me. FWIW,
> Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <>
> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep

Thanks for the review, Sudeep. All the ARM systems I've seen seem to
have a _PSD so this hasn't been an issue there. Some newer platforms
coming out are starting to use CPPC, though, and took the spec at face
value :).

Al Stone
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-10 19:26    [W:0.112 / U:0.276 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site