linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the pm tree

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]

Message-ID: <45b82a09-07a4-4bbd-a71c-d86010542dfe@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 14:14:40 +0000
From: "Limonciello, Mario" <Mario.Limonciello@....com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, "Rafael J. Wysocki"
	<rjw@...ysocki.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, "Ugwekar, Dhananjay"
	<Dhananjay.Ugwekar@....com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
	<linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the pm tree

On 5/27/25 22:50, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Mon, 12 May 2025 15:23:26 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 12 May 2025 14:55:17 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
>>>
>>>    drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>>>
>>> between commit:
>>>
>>>    608a76b65288 ("cpufreq/amd-pstate: Add support for the "Requested CPU Min frequency" BIOS option")
>>>
>>> from the pm tree and commit:
>>>
>>>    d7484babd2c4 ("x86/msr: Rename 'rdmsrl_on_cpu()' to 'rdmsrq_on_cpu()'")
>>>
>>> from the tip tree.
>>>
>>> I fixed it up (the former removed a line updated by the latter) and can
>>> carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is
>>> concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your
>>> upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may
>>> also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting
>>> tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts.
>>
>> Actually it needed the fix up below.
>>
>>
>> diff --cc drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>> index d96bb3e202ee,66fdc74f13ef..0d4c0de89a00
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>> @@@ -389,10 -389,9 +389,10 @@@ static inline int amd_pstate_cppc_enabl
>>    static int msr_init_perf(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata)
>>    {
>>    	union perf_cached perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->perf);
>>   -	u64 cap1, numerator;
>>   +	u64 cap1, numerator, cppc_req;
>>   +	u8 min_perf;
>>    
>> - 	int ret = rdmsrl_safe_on_cpu(cpudata->cpu, MSR_AMD_CPPC_CAP1,
>> + 	int ret = rdmsrq_safe_on_cpu(cpudata->cpu, MSR_AMD_CPPC_CAP1,
>>    				     &cap1);
>>    	if (ret)
>>    		return ret;
>> @@@ -401,22 -400,6 +401,22 @@@
>>    	if (ret)
>>    		return ret;
>>    
>> - 	ret = rdmsrl_on_cpu(cpudata->cpu, MSR_AMD_CPPC_REQ, &cppc_req);
>> ++	ret = rdmsrq_on_cpu(cpudata->cpu, MSR_AMD_CPPC_REQ, &cppc_req);
>>   +	if (ret)
>>   +		return ret;
>>   +
>>   +	WRITE_ONCE(cpudata->cppc_req_cached, cppc_req);
>>   +	min_perf = FIELD_GET(AMD_CPPC_MIN_PERF_MASK, cppc_req);
>>   +
>>   +	/*
>>   +	 * Clear out the min_perf part to check if the rest of the MSR is 0, if yes, this is an
>>   +	 * indication that the min_perf value is the one specified through the BIOS option
>>   +	 */
>>   +	cppc_req &= ~(AMD_CPPC_MIN_PERF_MASK);
>>   +
>>   +	if (!cppc_req)
>>   +		perf.bios_min_perf = min_perf;
>>   +
>>    	perf.highest_perf = numerator;
>>    	perf.max_limit_perf = numerator;
>>    	perf.min_limit_perf = FIELD_GET(AMD_CPPC_LOWEST_PERF_MASK, cap1);
> 
> This is now a conflict between the pm tree and Linus' tree.
> 

I thought that Ingo added an extra #define for compatibility?