From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.ozlabs.org (gandalf.ozlabs.org [150.107.74.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECFAE1E98E3; Wed, 28 May 2025 22:12:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=150.107.74.76 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748470330; cv=none; b=We1SPuCbnM5HgEY7L/O9oLhbJLFCHVqbCu/irH9lig3NrOMAHxFB8qawVjKaHOpl3FjC64m8+AvJi50DjLkwuC8dAvB6oT1AUgJpfT5nLEh6Lq0NURBkCtU/BDawg4HzRdaXn/Tgrs/Kuiaqom3G7QJmKhMAalQ9dWWD8WVje+Y= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748470330; c=relaxed/simple; bh=JiseGLwIbj9BNipfB204c8kdBEtpwFWpj2vXB9O98qI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=KauSMgI0kxew8cxgxLow/UqnptoLMFOx6UXEqJDwtPKgatnYGSEEJkc6uDwacI8JTNWca81Tm5URSkuRIUkUk6PU5R6AHuGBqyEXc1OwG9nwldOg+LpMej1T6wDuBb3iQ3ufE9zcP5+TJ2lyPH33KSz6W7Iy6xqFFAMHbG7/Wj4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=canb.auug.org.au; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=canb.auug.org.au; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=canb.auug.org.au header.i=@canb.auug.org.au header.b=VMasHqNG; arc=none smtp.client-ip=150.107.74.76 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=canb.auug.org.au Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=canb.auug.org.au Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=canb.auug.org.au header.i=@canb.auug.org.au header.b="VMasHqNG" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=canb.auug.org.au; s=202503; t=1748470323; bh=SGQvhWif3QYPIYX6pawvxuDDLJ9nBo78PsLIaUJuC+4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=VMasHqNGh7KnwiqrHbjjKLlnhT7sGDjOWMSw7BwARrnLcIqvHaBoYIT7IA8oklOXa Uc0q7BZFbPZyQgws3Zg+g9l5m0PP0wccC+HYjgsski5Bhs/KovKHevJEa8z+B8aXCg Srt0QzaKq/Vals+yRQQD7gTazNt1viQ+43kg33mXGdLOm1wDQtUrlB5kao8ZHmHXFW +icVUwYF/l9R209I/OQ4I5gwB29qfvKrggjrwRof1aPf9DyL3pJjRE5q+9Gh4EqZCA UrDXWk48IfX7SNEsF1LSL4uSkCoBiQu5nkt8DB44mJyksbnq+UIx1Lxxzy9twmrGl2 2V+URghR/qDLA== Received: from authenticated.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4b73dG0Gkmz4wxh; Thu, 29 May 2025 08:12:01 +1000 (AEST) Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 08:12:00 +1000 From: Stephen Rothwell To: "Limonciello, Mario" Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , "Ugwekar, Dhananjay" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Next Mailing List Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the pm tree Message-ID: <20250529081200.280bb922@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: <45b82a09-07a4-4bbd-a71c-d86010542dfe@amd.com> References: <20250512145517.6e0666e3@canb.auug.org.au> <20250512152326.3f2f0226@canb.auug.org.au> <20250528135020.79fec9ca@canb.auug.org.au> <45b82a09-07a4-4bbd-a71c-d86010542dfe@amd.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/_LFh1+GkUx18LD7UR+Q/bY3"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 --Sig_/_LFh1+GkUx18LD7UR+Q/bY3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Mario, On Wed, 28 May 2025 14:14:40 +0000 "Limonciello, Mario" wrote: > > On 5/27/25 22:50, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >=20 > > On Mon, 12 May 2025 15:23:26 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: =20 > >> > >> On Mon, 12 May 2025 14:55:17 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: =20 > >>> > >>> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > >>> > >>> drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c > >>> > >>> between commit: > >>> > >>> 608a76b65288 ("cpufreq/amd-pstate: Add support for the "Requested = CPU Min frequency" BIOS option") > >>> > >>> from the pm tree and commit: > >>> > >>> d7484babd2c4 ("x86/msr: Rename 'rdmsrl_on_cpu()' to 'rdmsrq_on_cpu= ()'") > >>> > >>> from the tip tree. > >>> > >>> I fixed it up (the former removed a line updated by the latter) and c= an > >>> carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is > >>> concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your > >>> upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may > >>> also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflict= ing > >>> tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts. =20 > >> > >> Actually it needed the fix up below. > >> > >> > >> diff --cc drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c > >> index d96bb3e202ee,66fdc74f13ef..0d4c0de89a00 > >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c > >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c > >> @@@ -389,10 -389,9 +389,10 @@@ static inline int amd_pstate_cppc_enabl > >> static int msr_init_perf(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata) > >> { > >> union perf_cached perf =3D READ_ONCE(cpudata->perf); > >> - u64 cap1, numerator; > >> + u64 cap1, numerator, cppc_req; > >> + u8 min_perf; > >> =20 > >> - int ret =3D rdmsrl_safe_on_cpu(cpudata->cpu, MSR_AMD_CPPC_CAP1, > >> + int ret =3D rdmsrq_safe_on_cpu(cpudata->cpu, MSR_AMD_CPPC_CAP1, > >> &cap1); > >> if (ret) > >> return ret; > >> @@@ -401,22 -400,6 +401,22 @@@ > >> if (ret) > >> return ret; > >> =20 > >> - ret =3D rdmsrl_on_cpu(cpudata->cpu, MSR_AMD_CPPC_REQ, &cppc_req); > >> ++ ret =3D rdmsrq_on_cpu(cpudata->cpu, MSR_AMD_CPPC_REQ, &cppc_req); > >> + if (ret) > >> + return ret; > >> + > >> + WRITE_ONCE(cpudata->cppc_req_cached, cppc_req); > >> + min_perf =3D FIELD_GET(AMD_CPPC_MIN_PERF_MASK, cppc_req); > >> + > >> + /* > >> + * Clear out the min_perf part to check if the rest of the MSR is = 0, if yes, this is an > >> + * indication that the min_perf value is the one specified through= the BIOS option > >> + */ > >> + cppc_req &=3D ~(AMD_CPPC_MIN_PERF_MASK); > >> + > >> + if (!cppc_req) > >> + perf.bios_min_perf =3D min_perf; > >> + > >> perf.highest_perf =3D numerator; > >> perf.max_limit_perf =3D numerator; > >> perf.min_limit_perf =3D FIELD_GET(AMD_CPPC_LOWEST_PERF_MASK, cap1)= ; =20 > >=20 > > This is now a conflict between the pm tree and Linus' tree. > > =20 >=20 > I thought that Ingo added an extra #define for compatibility? Having that define does not change the above conflict at all. It just means that further additions of calls to rdmsrl_safe_on_cpu() will not cause build failures. --=20 Cheers, Stephen Rothwell --Sig_/_LFh1+GkUx18LD7UR+Q/bY3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEyBAEBCAAdFiEENIC96giZ81tWdLgKAVBC80lX0GwFAmg3ijAACgkQAVBC80lX 0Gzvlwf3VG5iu/KkhuBpYt85nxQftsDbAJBj7EHsCa/ilw9lWHTBYjdoNtySRlLq AXZp9+luNnIbRVFSXDWZ3MgEggjes96JgIhs3sPjfPNNXcT2dOx0GbQFeV9xR/2n MWAwt9tFIv/1tSV91sJMhGDNw/gd4IlmbIaUYmUgwue7rMLgeDPhkwDR9WdHKSvA gDsxPowrzvrxCTrHDXKkvXMd0KbX7h8+wd82hfdk84xKjIfDFALwTxchD1SFGuPH E6ki+90olVTLPfzhYVOv1nUaStVYheUol76bOl1C1gqBYyICpTMeVJBOjC93YOio IYrr7XrkN+ihqtNAV7ovFL7EcMRQ =XcqE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/_LFh1+GkUx18LD7UR+Q/bY3--