linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] cpufreq: amd-pstate: remove legacy 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <42fd6e46-30c0-439c-b58c-00d8a201560c@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 10:28:14 -0600
From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
To: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
 rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, viresh.kumar@...aro.org, Ray.Huang@....com,
 gautham.shenoy@....com, Borislav.Petkov@....com,
 Perry Yuan <perry.yuan@....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 v2 6/6] cpufreq: amd-pstate: remove legacy set_boost
 callback for passive mode

On 2/4/2024 08:57, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> On neděle 4. února 2024 13:12:57 CET Perry Yuan wrote:
>> With new freqency boost interface supported, legacy boost control
>> doesn't make sense any more which only support passive mode.
>> so it can remove the legacy set_boost interface from amd-pstate driver
>> in case of there is conflict with new boost control logic.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Perry Yuan <perry.yuan@....com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c | 1 -
>>   include/linux/amd-pstate.h   | 1 -
>>   2 files changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>> index 02a76b8fb298..4e377efdd4ed 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>> @@ -1492,7 +1492,6 @@ 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,
>>   };
>> diff --git a/include/linux/amd-pstate.h b/include/linux/amd-pstate.h
>> index 446394f84606..66d939a344b1 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/amd-pstate.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/amd-pstate.h
>> @@ -80,7 +80,6 @@ struct amd_cpudata {
>>   	struct amd_aperf_mperf prev;
>>   
>>   	u64	freq;
>> -	bool	boost_supported;
> 
> This leaves amd_pstate_ut_check_freq() in drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate-ut.c broken. Likely, the whole `if (cpudata->boost_supported) {` hunk should be removed there too.
> 
> Also, in the header file, there's kernel-doc before `struct amd_cpudata`, where boost_supported is mentioned. It should be removed too then.

Yeah; I though the kernel robot caught this on v1 too.  Make sure you 
run the unit tests at *each* patch so that this code remains bisectable.

> 
>>   
>>   	/* EPP feature related attributes*/
>>   	s16	epp_policy;
>>
> 
>