From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>
Cc: lenb@kernel.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, pprakash@codeaurora.org,
wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Correct the processing for base_frequency
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 12:38:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3574470.KuU4jANTQq@aspire.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190325160440.7575-1-srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>
On Monday, March 25, 2019 5:04:38 PM CET Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> The base_frequency display in cpufreq sysfs for intel_pstate gets the
> guaranteed ratio by reading CPPC guaranteed performance register as a
> first preference before falling back to x86 MSR for Hardware P-state
> Capabilities. The current code in cppc_acpi.c assumed that "guaranteed
> performance register" can be an integer field, which is invalid as per
> ACPI spec. So this change explicitly check for INTEGER values for
> invalid BIOS/firmware and ignore.
> Also guaranteed performance register field is optional and when not
> present, nominal performance can be used as the guaranteed performance.
> But spec calls that this is true only in non-autonomous mode. So
> no change is made in cppc_acpi.c to make nominal as guaranteed in this
> case to avoid dependency on autonomous and non-autonomous mode. Instead
> a change is added to intel_pstate driver, which is specific to x86 to
> make nominal as guaranteed when guaranteed performance field is absent
> or has invalid value.
> Also we are working to clarify this non-autonomous mode requirement
> through ACPI standard body.
>
> v2:
> Changes done as suggested by Rafael.
>
>
> Srinivas Pandruvada (2):
> ACPI / CPPC: Fix processing for guaranteed performance
> cpufreq: intel_pstate: Also use cppc nominal_perf for base_frequency
>
> drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c | 9 +++++++--
> drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 5 ++++-
> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
>
Both applied, thanks!
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-26 11:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-25 16:04 Srinivas Pandruvada
2019-03-25 16:04 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPI / CPPC: Fix processing for guaranteed performance Srinivas Pandruvada
2019-03-25 16:04 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Also use cppc nominal_perf for base_frequency Srinivas Pandruvada
2019-03-26 11:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3574470.KuU4jANTQq@aspire.rjw.lan \
--to=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pprakash@codeaurora.org \
--cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®