linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: amd-pstate: remove set

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: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:45:20 -0600
From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
To: Perry Yuan <perry.yuan@....com>, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
 viresh.kumar@...aro.org, Ray.Huang@....com, gautham.shenoy@....com,
 Borislav.Petkov@....com
Cc: Alexander.Deucher@....com, Xinmei.Huang@....com, Xiaojian.Du@....com,
 Li.Meng@....com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: amd-pstate: remove set_boost callback for
 passive mode

On 1/26/2024 02:08, Perry Yuan wrote:
> From: Perry Yuan <Perry.Yuan@....com>
> 
> The following patches will enable `amd-pstate` CPU boost control method
When it's committed it won't be a patch.  How about instead "A specific 
amd-pstate CPU boost control method is to be introduced and the legacy 
callback doesn't make sense" or something along those lines.

Also; is the ordering correct?  In terms of bisectability should this 
come after the new one is introduced perhaps?

> which will not need this common boost control callback anymore, so we
> remove the legacy set_boost interface from amd-pstate driver.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Perry Yuan <Perry.Yuan@....com>
> ---
>   drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c | 26 --------------------------
>   1 file changed, 26 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> index 9a1e194d5cf8..8f308f56ade6 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> @@ -632,31 +632,6 @@ static int amd_get_lowest_nonlinear_freq(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata)
>   	return lowest_nonlinear_freq * 1000;
>   }
>   
> -static int amd_pstate_set_boost(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, int state)
> -{
> -	struct amd_cpudata *cpudata = policy->driver_data;
> -	int ret;
> -
> -	if (!cpudata->boost_supported) {
> -		pr_err("Boost mode is not supported by this processor or SBIOS\n");
> -		return -EINVAL;
> -	}
> -
> -	if (state)
> -		policy->cpuinfo.max_freq = cpudata->max_freq;
> -	else
> -		policy->cpuinfo.max_freq = cpudata->nominal_freq;
> -
> -	policy->max = policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
> -
> -	ret = freq_qos_update_request(&cpudata->req[1],
> -				      policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
> -	if (ret < 0)
> -		return ret;
> -
> -	return 0;
> -}
> -
>   static void amd_pstate_boost_init(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata)
>   {
>   	u32 highest_perf, nominal_perf;
> @@ -1391,7 +1366,6 @@ static struct cpufreq_driver amd_pstate_driver = {
>   	.exit		= amd_pstate_cpu_exit,
>   	.suspend	= amd_pstate_cpu_suspend,
>   	.resume		= amd_pstate_cpu_resume,
> -	.set_boost	= amd_pstate_set_boost,
>   	.name		= "amd-pstate",
>   	.attr		= amd_pstate_attr,
>   };