[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fa14666a-269c-249a-f603-b00f6301c1a6@criteo.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 08:11:51 +0000
From: Erwan Velu <e.velu@...teo.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq/intel_pstate: Do not issue the not supported
message on !Intel
> index ea62e3f02d56..19854f01e2fa 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> @@ -2608,7 +2608,9 @@ static int __init intel_pstate_init(void)
> } else {
> id = x86_match_cpu(intel_pstate_cpu_ids);
> if (!id) {
> - pr_info("CPU ID not supported\n");
> + if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL)
> + pr_info("CPU model not supported\n");
> +
> return -ENODEV;
> }
That's a good catch but I was wondering why not putting this vendor
condition at the initial "if (noload)" statement.
I mean, if we don't run an intel CPU there is no need of making the
x86_match_cpu().
This commit is also killing the case of reporting an unsupported intel
processor.
I'd suggest something like this and keep the 'CPUID not supported' part
untouched.
if (no_load) || (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_INTEL)
return -ENODEV
Powered by blists - more mailing lists