From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from canpmsgout04.his.huawei.com (canpmsgout04.his.huawei.com [113.46.200.219]) (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 4B5EA26CE1E; Thu, 25 Dec 2025 03:56:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.219 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1766634977; cv=none; b=dy4t2CgBGO9X5mgGRsiT7dwU3NkJexgqzYbLVNMmh+b/ut1p9RJFJXm8zjGkvB7y7IgGlwpUCTotqsW2wMIsFQpKsMUxR+lhCXL/iyOLJIrda31fbKJYaf9ZCVA5YktMQ9rBW1/RrXKamYkljspMOGyVD5hZwIA0kRldzV+Ls84= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1766634977; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fMmt53/JJWWP4pjndh+z3lihgDw1Gcx+TyH5M8i6tiw=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=tXbE4xMxZhnchfF9YdFxNS+9O+PhupbM5hbEtiaDgLowWAH7Ei6/X9xmFUHhnEi2oC9UC3gvR8NC4aPT8SIPYU1kkvQrUOKkipSvt7klwbOqwLYS7yeKPTf2ZW184MGj8LHco820kJyoYpGgUG36j4cFgiOkDeCJnRN3mIkdF5M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b=FITWrUDr; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.219 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b="FITWrUDr" dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=huawei.com; s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=From; bh=SeTeoeWMD6hV4CIob9uwUSK89zuLIoZE1oDuloPtKCQ=; b=FITWrUDr6rrlRAI8nb6S2WONTWuA3Su2v7og1znc0LTGo6Zaxq8Y8vsfFPMKtD0GSgfY3mkCM MVoZgMobic1/WVso94DUNyXvGWJuE5ZK7sJ34Fj1NRsA0bQaY0iyDW5s0Z0tw+XfUc7zPv89n5+ jxpy7gzXVIo4opQYqhdwdu8= Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.162.144]) by canpmsgout04.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4dcFFh0j55z1prKB; Thu, 25 Dec 2025 11:52:56 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemf200001.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.181.227]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8265640538; Thu, 25 Dec 2025 11:56:05 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.121.90] (10.67.121.90) by kwepemf200001.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.227) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Thu, 25 Dec 2025 11:56:04 +0800 Message-ID: <81f6409e-7909-44f7-9618-5f263b297ce9@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2025 11:56:04 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/11] ACPI: CPPC: Extend cppc_set_epp_perf() to support auto_sel and epp To: Sumit Gupta , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , CC: , , , , , , , References: <20251223121307.711773-1-sumitg@nvidia.com> <20251223121307.711773-5-sumitg@nvidia.com> From: "zhenglifeng (A)" In-Reply-To: <20251223121307.711773-5-sumitg@nvidia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems200001.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.67) To kwepemf200001.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.227) On 2025/12/23 20:13, Sumit Gupta wrote: > Extend cppc_set_epp_perf() to write both auto_sel and energy_perf > registers when they are in FFH or SystemMemory address space. > > This keeps the behavior consistent with PCC case where both registers > are already updated together, but was missing for FFH/SystemMemory. > > Also update EPP constants for better clarity: > - Add CPPC_EPP_PERFORMANCE_PREF (0x00) for performance preference > - Add CPPC_EPP_ENERGY_EFFICIENCY_PREF (0xFF) for energy efficiency > > Signed-off-by: Sumit Gupta > --- > drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > include/acpi/cppc_acpi.h | 3 ++- > 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c > index a4e89fe6aab5..403ee988a8c6 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c > @@ -1556,6 +1556,8 @@ int cppc_set_epp_perf(int cpu, struct cppc_perf_ctrls *perf_ctrls, bool enable) > struct cpc_register_resource *auto_sel_reg; > struct cpc_desc *cpc_desc = per_cpu(cpc_desc_ptr, cpu); > struct cppc_pcc_data *pcc_ss_data = NULL; > + bool autosel_ffh_sysmem; > + bool epp_ffh_sysmem; > int ret; > > if (!cpc_desc) { > @@ -1566,6 +1568,11 @@ int cppc_set_epp_perf(int cpu, struct cppc_perf_ctrls *perf_ctrls, bool enable) > auto_sel_reg = &cpc_desc->cpc_regs[AUTO_SEL_ENABLE]; > epp_set_reg = &cpc_desc->cpc_regs[ENERGY_PERF]; > > + epp_ffh_sysmem = CPC_SUPPORTED(epp_set_reg) && > + (CPC_IN_FFH(epp_set_reg) || CPC_IN_SYSTEM_MEMORY(epp_set_reg)); > + autosel_ffh_sysmem = CPC_SUPPORTED(auto_sel_reg) && > + (CPC_IN_FFH(auto_sel_reg) || CPC_IN_SYSTEM_MEMORY(auto_sel_reg)); > + > if (CPC_IN_PCC(epp_set_reg) || CPC_IN_PCC(auto_sel_reg)) { > if (pcc_ss_id < 0) { > pr_debug("Invalid pcc_ss_id for CPU:%d\n", cpu); > @@ -1590,14 +1597,30 @@ int cppc_set_epp_perf(int cpu, struct cppc_perf_ctrls *perf_ctrls, bool enable) > /* after writing CPC, transfer the ownership of PCC to platform */ > ret = send_pcc_cmd(pcc_ss_id, CMD_WRITE); > up_write(&pcc_ss_data->pcc_lock); > - } else if (osc_cpc_flexible_adr_space_confirmed && > - CPC_SUPPORTED(epp_set_reg) && CPC_IN_FFH(epp_set_reg)) { > - ret = cpc_write(cpu, epp_set_reg, perf_ctrls->energy_perf); > + } else if (osc_cpc_flexible_adr_space_confirmed) { > + if (!epp_ffh_sysmem && !autosel_ffh_sysmem) { > + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP; > + } else { I think this can do the same thing: } else if (osc_cpc_flexible_adr_space_confirmed && (epp_ffh_sysmem || autosel_ffh_sysmem)) { and reduce the levels of indentation. > + if (autosel_ffh_sysmem) { > + ret = cpc_write(cpu, auto_sel_reg, enable); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + } > + > + if (epp_ffh_sysmem) { > + ret = cpc_write(cpu, epp_set_reg, > + perf_ctrls->energy_perf); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + } > + } > } else { > - ret = -ENOTSUPP; > - pr_debug("_CPC in PCC and _CPC in FFH are not supported\n"); > + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP; > } > > + if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP) > + pr_debug("CPU%d: _CPC not in PCC/FFH/SystemMemory\n", cpu); > + > return ret; > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cppc_set_epp_perf); The code below is unrelated to the code above and should ideally be separated into a separate patch I think. > @@ -1609,7 +1632,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cppc_set_epp_perf); > */ > int cppc_set_epp(int cpu, u64 epp_val) > { > - if (epp_val > CPPC_ENERGY_PERF_MAX) > + if (epp_val > CPPC_EPP_ENERGY_EFFICIENCY_PREF) > return -EINVAL; > > return cppc_set_reg_val(cpu, ENERGY_PERF, epp_val); > diff --git a/include/acpi/cppc_acpi.h b/include/acpi/cppc_acpi.h > index 12a1dc31bf2a..2860a0252313 100644 > --- a/include/acpi/cppc_acpi.h > +++ b/include/acpi/cppc_acpi.h > @@ -39,7 +39,8 @@ > /* CPPC_AUTO_ACT_WINDOW_MAX_SIG is 127, so 128 and 129 will decay to 127 when writing */ > #define CPPC_AUTO_ACT_WINDOW_SIG_CARRY_THRESH 129 > > -#define CPPC_ENERGY_PERF_MAX (0xFF) > +#define CPPC_EPP_PERFORMANCE_PREF 0x00 > +#define CPPC_EPP_ENERGY_EFFICIENCY_PREF 0xFF > > /* Each register has the folowing format. */ > struct cpc_reg {