lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] acpi-cpufreq: Honor _PSD table setting in CPU frequency control
On 10/16 04:58, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 10:44 PM Wei Huang <wei.huang2@amd.com> wrote:
> >
> > acpi-cpufreq has a old quirk that overrides the _PSD table supplied by
> > BIOS on AMD CPUs. However the _PSD table of new AMD CPUs (Family 19h+)
> > now accurately reports the P-state dependency of CPU cores. Hence this
> > quirk needs to be fixed in order to support new CPUs' frequency control.
> >
> > Fixes: acd316248205 ("acpi-cpufreq: Add quirk to disable _PSD usage on all AMD CPUs")
> > Signed-off-by: Wei Huang <wei.huang2@amd.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> > index e4ff681faaaa..1e6e2abde428 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> > @@ -691,7 +691,8 @@ static int acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > cpumask_copy(policy->cpus, topology_core_cpumask(cpu));
> > }
> >
> > - if (check_amd_hwpstate_cpu(cpu) && !acpi_pstate_strict) {
> > + if (check_amd_hwpstate_cpu(cpu) && (c->x86 < 0x19) &&
>
> Why don't you use boot_cpu_data instead of *c?

Thanks for your review. c->x86 contains the same level of information as boot_cpu_data when
acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init() starts to execute. But you are right, it is better to use boot_cpu_data,
consistent with the rest code in the same function.

>
> And why don't you do the extra check in check_amd_hwpstate_cpu()?

check_amd_hwpstate_cpu() is called at various locations. This _PSD fix doesn't apply at
other callers.

>
> Also the parens around it are not necessary here and is there any

I will remove it in the next rev.

> chance for having a proper symbol instead of the raw 0x19 in that
> check?

Unfortunately I didn't find a replacement. Only x86_vendor has an acronym. The rest
(fam/model/stepping) use numerical values, including in arch/x86 boot code.

>
> > + !acpi_pstate_strict) {
> > cpumask_clear(policy->cpus);
> > cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus);
> > cpumask_copy(data->freqdomain_cpus,
> > --
> > 2.26.2
> >

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-16 18:09    [W:0.057 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site