From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753527AbbLIXId (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2015 18:08:33 -0500 Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:49693 "HELO v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750810AbbLIXIb (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2015 18:08:31 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Jacob Pan Cc: Prarit Bhargava , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Radivoje Jovanovic , Seiichi Ikarashi , Mathias Krause , Ajay Thomas Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] powercap, intel_rapl.c, fix BIOS lock check Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 00:38:27 +0100 Message-ID: <5563622.j8xTDST9Ds@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/4.1.0-rc5+; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20151209085355.6442a508@icelake> References: <1449667872-11197-1-git-send-email-prarit@redhat.com> <20151209085355.6442a508@icelake> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, December 09, 2015 08:53:55 AM Jacob Pan wrote: > On Wed, 9 Dec 2015 08:31:12 -0500 > Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > > Intel RAPL initialized on several systems where the BIOS lock bit (msr > > 0x610, bit 63) was set. This occured because the return value of > > rapl_read_data_raw() was being checked, rather than the value of the > > variable passed in, locked. > > > > This patch properly implments the rapl_read_data_raw() call to check > > the variable locked, and now the Intel RAPL driver outputs the > > warning: > > > > intel_rapl: RAPL package 0 domain package locked by BIOS > > > > and does not initialize for the package. > > > > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" > > Cc: Jacob Pan > > Cc: Radivoje Jovanovic > > Cc: Seiichi Ikarashi > > Cc: Mathias Krause > > Cc: Ajay Thomas > > Signed-off-by: Prarit Bhargava > > > > [v2]: fix brackets > > Acked-by: Jacob Pan OK, I've put it into my bleeding-edge branch as 4.5 candidate, but do we want it in "stable" and therefore should it be pushed for 4.4? Thanks, Rafael