linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/8] ACPI: CPPC: add APIs and sysfs interface for min/max

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: <CAJZ5v0j8bQm+00+m75rmpKpm8yVumvYsWzCdYyCPwksnebY__A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2025 21:08:40 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@...dia.com>
Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>, rafael@...nel.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org, 
	lenb@...nel.org, robert.moore@...el.com, corbet@....net, 
	pierre.gondois@....com, zhenglifeng1@...wei.com, rdunlap@...radead.org, 
	ray.huang@....com, gautham.shenoy@....com, mario.limonciello@....com, 
	perry.yuan@....com, ionela.voinescu@....com, zhanjie9@...ilicon.com, 
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, acpica-devel@...ts.linux.dev, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev, 
	oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, 
	treding@...dia.com, jonathanh@...dia.com, vsethi@...dia.com, 
	ksitaraman@...dia.com, sanjayc@...dia.com, nhartman@...dia.com, 
	bbasu@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/8] ACPI: CPPC: add APIs and sysfs interface for min/max_perf

On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 11:00 AM Sumit Gupta <sumitg@...dia.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 06/11/25 16:00, kernel test robot wrote:
> > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> >
> >
> > Hi Sumit,
> >
> > kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:
> >
> > [auto build test WARNING on rafael-pm/linux-next]
> > [also build test WARNING on rafael-pm/bleeding-edge linus/master v6.18-rc4 next-20251106]
> > [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
> > And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
> > https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]
> >
> > url:    https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Sumit-Gupta/cpufreq-CPPC-Add-generic-helpers-for-sysfs-show-store/20251105-194715
> > base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git linux-next
> > patch link:    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251105113844.4086250-5-sumitg%40nvidia.com
> > patch subject: [PATCH v4 4/8] ACPI: CPPC: add APIs and sysfs interface for min/max_perf
> > config: riscv-defconfig (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20251106/202511061802.lIq09jwh-lkp@intel.com/config)
> > compiler: clang version 22.0.0git (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project d2625a438020ad35330cda29c3def102c1687b1b)
> > reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20251106/202511061802.lIq09jwh-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
> >
> > If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
> > the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
> > | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> > | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202511061802.lIq09jwh-lkp@intel.com/
> >
> > All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> >
> >>> Warning: drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c:954 function parameter 'policy' not described in 'show_min_perf'
> >>> Warning: drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c:954 function parameter 'buf' not described in 'show_min_perf'
> >>> Warning: drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c:976 function parameter 'policy' not described in 'store_min_perf'
> >>> Warning: drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c:976 function parameter 'buf' not described in 'store_min_perf'
> >>> Warning: drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c:976 function parameter 'count' not described in 'store_min_perf'
> >>> Warning: drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c:1003 function parameter 'policy' not described in 'show_max_perf'
> >>> Warning: drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c:1003 function parameter 'buf' not described in 'show_max_perf'
> >>> Warning: drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c:1025 function parameter 'policy' not described in 'store_max_perf'
> >>> Warning: drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c:1025 function parameter 'buf' not described in 'store_max_perf'
> >>> Warning: drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c:1025 function parameter 'count' not described in 'store_max_perf'
> > --
> > 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
> > https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
>
>
> Thank you for the report.
> Below change to comments seem to be fixing this warning.

So can you please send a new version of this patch with the changes
below folded in?

> -------------------------------------------------------
>    /**
>    * show_min_perf - Show minimum performance as frequency (kHz)
> + * @policy: cpufreq policy
> + * @buf: buffer to write the frequency value to
>    *
>    * Reads the MIN_PERF register and converts the performance value to
>    * frequency (kHz) for user-space consumption.
> @@ -1117,6 +1119,9 @@ static ssize_t show_min_perf(struct cpufreq_policy
> *policy, char *buf)
>
>   /**
>    * store_min_perf - Set minimum performance from frequency (kHz)
> + * @policy: cpufreq policy
> + * @buf: buffer to write the frequency value to
> + * @count: size of @buf
>    *
>    * Converts the user-provided frequency (kHz) to a performance value
>    * and writes it to the MIN_PERF register.
> @@ -1144,6 +1149,8 @@ static ssize_t store_min_perf(struct
> cpufreq_policy *policy, const char *buf, si
>
>   /**
>    * show_max_perf - Show maximum performance as frequency (kHz)
> + * @policy: cpufreq policy
> + * @buf: buffer to write the frequency value to
>    *
>    * Reads the MAX_PERF register and converts the performance value to
>    * frequency (kHz) for user-space consumption.
> @@ -1166,6 +1173,9 @@ static ssize_t show_max_perf(struct cpufreq_policy
> *policy, char *buf)
>
>   /**
>    * store_max_perf - Set maximum performance from frequency (kHz)
> + * @policy: cpufreq policy
> + * @buf: buffer to write the frequency value to
> + * @count: size of @buf
> -------------------------------------------------------

As for the whole series, I generally need ARM folks to review it and
tell me that it is fine.

Thanks!