linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hwmon: (fam15h_power) Add bit masking for tdp

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 28 Jan 2016 10:25:39 +0800
From:	Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:	Gioh Kim <gi-oh.kim@...fitbricks.com>, <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	<lm-sensors@...sensors.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hwmon: (fam15h_power) Add bit masking for tdp_limit

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:12:56PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:02:09PM +0100, Gioh Kim wrote:
> > Add bit masking to read ApmTdpLimit precisely
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Gioh Kim <gi-oh.kim@...fitbricks.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c | 10 +++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c b/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c
> > index f77eb97..4f695d8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c
> > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c
> > @@ -90,7 +90,15 @@ static ssize_t show_power(struct device *dev,
> >  	pci_bus_read_config_dword(f4->bus, PCI_DEVFN(PCI_SLOT(f4->devfn), 5),
> >  				  REG_TDP_LIMIT3, &val);
> >  
> > -	tdp_limit = val >> 16;
> > +	/*
> > +	 * On Carrizo and later platforms, ApmTdpLimit bit field
> > +	 * is extended to 16:31 from 16:28.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (boot_cpu_data.x86 == 0x15 && boot_cpu_data.x86_model >= 0x60)
> > +		tdp_limit = val >> 16;
> > +	else
> > +		tdp_limit = (val >> 16) & 0x1fff;
> > +
> >  	curr_pwr_watts = ((u64)(tdp_limit +
> >  				data->base_tdp)) << running_avg_range;
> >  	curr_pwr_watts -= running_avg_capture;
> > -- 
> 
> Acked-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
> 
> Btw, Rui, you could consider unifying the code under a single
> 
> 	if (boot_cpu_data.x86 == 0x15 && boot_cpu_data.x86_model >= 0x60) {
> 		...
> 
> 	else
> 		...
> 
> as with this patch you'll have two of those checks. Unified might be
> better readable but that is for another patch.
> 

Make sence, I will do that. :-)

Thanks,
Rui