[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID:
<CYYPR12MB8655CAB5E3A351E8AC6917899C7E2@CYYPR12MB8655.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:46:52 +0000
From: "Yuan, Perry" <Perry.Yuan@....com>
To: "Limonciello, Mario" <Mario.Limonciello@....com>,
"rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
"viresh.kumar@...aro.org" <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, "Huang, Ray"
<Ray.Huang@....com>, "Shenoy, Gautham Ranjal" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
"Petkov, Borislav" <Borislav.Petkov@....com>
CC: "Deucher, Alexander" <Alexander.Deucher@....com>, "Huang, Shimmer"
<Shimmer.Huang@....com>, "Du, Xiaojian" <Xiaojian.Du@....com>, "Meng, Li
(Jassmine)" <Li.Meng@....com>, "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: amd-pstate: remove set_boost callback for
passive mode
[AMD Official Use Only - General]
Hi Mario,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Limonciello, Mario <Mario.Limonciello@....com>
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2024 11:45 PM
> To: Yuan, Perry <Perry.Yuan@....com>; rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com;
> viresh.kumar@...aro.org; Huang, Ray <Ray.Huang@....com>; Shenoy,
> Gautham Ranjal <gautham.shenoy@....com>; Petkov, Borislav
> <Borislav.Petkov@....com>
> Cc: Deucher, Alexander <Alexander.Deucher@....com>; Huang, Shimmer
> <Shimmer.Huang@....com>; Du, Xiaojian <Xiaojian.Du@....com>; Meng,
> Li (Jassmine) <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?
I move the patch to the end of the series and update the commit info like you suggested.
Thank you for the feedback.
Regards.
Perry
>
> > 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,
> > };
Powered by blists - more mailing lists