diff mbox series

[v2,4/4] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Use the acpi_pm_profile_server() symbol

Message ID 20230615063333.4030395-1-perry.yuan@amd.com
State New
Headers show
Series [v2,1/4] ACPI: CPPC: Add a symbol to check if the preferred profile is a server | expand

Commit Message

Yuan, Perry June 15, 2023, 6:33 a.m. UTC 
From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>

Avoid duplication of functionality by using the generic symbol.
This does have a functional change that intel-pstate will now
match "SOHO server" as well.

Reviewed-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Perry Yuan <Perry.Yuan@amd.com>
---
 drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 19 ++++---------------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

Comments

Rafael J. Wysocki June 15, 2023, 3:57 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 8:35 AM Perry Yuan <perry.yuan@amd.com> wrote:
>
> From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
>
> Avoid duplication of functionality by using the generic symbol.
> This does have a functional change that intel-pstate will now
> match "SOHO server" as well.

And why do you think that it is a good idea to change this behavior?

> Reviewed-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
> Signed-off-by: Perry Yuan <Perry.Yuan@amd.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 19 ++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> index 2548ec92faa2..6401338971c7 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> @@ -313,18 +313,9 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(intel_pstate_limits_lock);
>
>  #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>
> -static bool intel_pstate_acpi_pm_profile_server(void)
> -{
> -       if (acpi_gbl_FADT.preferred_profile == PM_ENTERPRISE_SERVER ||
> -           acpi_gbl_FADT.preferred_profile == PM_PERFORMANCE_SERVER)
> -               return true;
> -
> -       return false;
> -}
> -
>  static bool intel_pstate_get_ppc_enable_status(void)
>  {
> -       if (intel_pstate_acpi_pm_profile_server())
> +       if (acpi_pm_profile_server())
>                 return true;
>
>         return acpi_ppc;
> @@ -481,10 +472,6 @@ static inline void intel_pstate_exit_perf_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>  {
>  }
>
> -static inline bool intel_pstate_acpi_pm_profile_server(void)
> -{
> -       return false;
> -}
>  #endif /* CONFIG_ACPI */
>
>  #ifndef CONFIG_ACPI_CPPC_LIB
> @@ -2407,8 +2394,10 @@ static int intel_pstate_init_cpu(unsigned int cpunum)
>                 if (hwp_active) {
>                         intel_pstate_hwp_enable(cpu);
>
> -                       if (intel_pstate_acpi_pm_profile_server())
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> +                       if (acpi_pm_profile_server())
>                                 hwp_boost = true;
> +#endif
>                 }
>         } else if (hwp_active) {
>                 /*
> --
> 2.34.1
>
Mario Limonciello June 19, 2023, 2:53 a.m. UTC | #2 
On 6/15/23 10:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 8:35 AM Perry Yuan <perry.yuan@amd.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
>>
>> Avoid duplication of functionality by using the generic symbol.
>> This does have a functional change that intel-pstate will now
>> match "SOHO server" as well.
> 
> And why do you think that it is a good idea to change this behavior?

The idea was to cover all possible server types. It seemed that it could 
be an oversight that it wasn't included initially.

Is that not the case and it is "intentionally" not including "SOHO server"?

> 
>> Reviewed-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Perry Yuan <Perry.Yuan@amd.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 19 ++++---------------
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
>> index 2548ec92faa2..6401338971c7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
>> @@ -313,18 +313,9 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(intel_pstate_limits_lock);
>>
>>   #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>>
>> -static bool intel_pstate_acpi_pm_profile_server(void)
>> -{
>> -       if (acpi_gbl_FADT.preferred_profile == PM_ENTERPRISE_SERVER ||
>> -           acpi_gbl_FADT.preferred_profile == PM_PERFORMANCE_SERVER)
>> -               return true;
>> -
>> -       return false;
>> -}
>> -
>>   static bool intel_pstate_get_ppc_enable_status(void)
>>   {
>> -       if (intel_pstate_acpi_pm_profile_server())
>> +       if (acpi_pm_profile_server())
>>                  return true;
>>
>>          return acpi_ppc;
>> @@ -481,10 +472,6 @@ static inline void intel_pstate_exit_perf_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>   {
>>   }
>>
>> -static inline bool intel_pstate_acpi_pm_profile_server(void)
>> -{
>> -       return false;
>> -}
>>   #endif /* CONFIG_ACPI */
>>
>>   #ifndef CONFIG_ACPI_CPPC_LIB
>> @@ -2407,8 +2394,10 @@ static int intel_pstate_init_cpu(unsigned int cpunum)
>>                  if (hwp_active) {
>>                          intel_pstate_hwp_enable(cpu);
>>
>> -                       if (intel_pstate_acpi_pm_profile_server())
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>> +                       if (acpi_pm_profile_server())
>>                                  hwp_boost = true;
>> +#endif
>>                  }
>>          } else if (hwp_active) {
>>                  /*
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>
Rafael J. Wysocki June 20, 2023, 9:23 a.m. UTC | #3 
On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 4:53 AM Mario Limonciello
<mario.limonciello@amd.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/15/23 10:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 8:35 AM Perry Yuan <perry.yuan@amd.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
> >>
> >> Avoid duplication of functionality by using the generic symbol.
> >> This does have a functional change that intel-pstate will now
> >> match "SOHO server" as well.
> >
> > And why do you think that it is a good idea to change this behavior?
>
> The idea was to cover all possible server types. It seemed that it could
> be an oversight that it wasn't included initially.
>
> Is that not the case and it is "intentionally" not including "SOHO server"?

Yes, it is.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
index 2548ec92faa2..6401338971c7 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
@@ -313,18 +313,9 @@  static DEFINE_MUTEX(intel_pstate_limits_lock);
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
 
-static bool intel_pstate_acpi_pm_profile_server(void)
-{
-	if (acpi_gbl_FADT.preferred_profile == PM_ENTERPRISE_SERVER ||
-	    acpi_gbl_FADT.preferred_profile == PM_PERFORMANCE_SERVER)
-		return true;
-
-	return false;
-}
-
 static bool intel_pstate_get_ppc_enable_status(void)
 {
-	if (intel_pstate_acpi_pm_profile_server())
+	if (acpi_pm_profile_server())
 		return true;
 
 	return acpi_ppc;
@@ -481,10 +472,6 @@  static inline void intel_pstate_exit_perf_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
 {
 }
 
-static inline bool intel_pstate_acpi_pm_profile_server(void)
-{
-	return false;
-}
 #endif /* CONFIG_ACPI */
 
 #ifndef CONFIG_ACPI_CPPC_LIB
@@ -2407,8 +2394,10 @@  static int intel_pstate_init_cpu(unsigned int cpunum)
 		if (hwp_active) {
 			intel_pstate_hwp_enable(cpu);
 
-			if (intel_pstate_acpi_pm_profile_server())
+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
+			if (acpi_pm_profile_server())
 				hwp_boost = true;
+#endif
 		}
 	} else if (hwp_active) {
 		/*