On 11/25/20 8:48 AM, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> Re-factor the code to override the firmware provided frequency domain
> information (via PSD) to localise the checks in one function.
>
> No functional change intended.
>
> Signed-off-by: Punit Agrawal <punitagra...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Wei Huang <wei.hua...@amd.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c | 17 +++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> index 1e4fbb002a31..b1e7df96d428 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> @@ -191,6 +191,20 @@ static int check_amd_hwpstate_cpu(unsigned int cpuid)
> return cpu_has(cpu, X86_FEATURE_HW_PSTATE);
> }
>
> +static int override_acpi_psd(unsigned int cpu_id)
^^^^^
int is fine, but it might be better to use bool. Otherwise I don't see
any issues with this patch.
> +{
> + struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &boot_cpu_data;
> +
> + if (c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD) {
> + if (!check_amd_hwpstate_cpu(cpu_id))
> + return false;
> +
> + return c->x86 < 0x19;
> + }
> +
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> static unsigned extract_io(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, u32 value)
> {
> struct acpi_cpufreq_data *data = policy->driver_data;
> @@ -691,8 +705,7 @@ static int acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy
> *policy)
> cpumask_copy(policy->cpus, topology_core_cpumask(cpu));
> }
>
> - if (check_amd_hwpstate_cpu(cpu) && boot_cpu_data.x86 < 0x19 &&
> - !acpi_pstate_strict) {
> + if (override_acpi_psd(cpu) && !acpi_pstate_strict) {
> cpumask_clear(policy->cpus);
> cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus);
> cpumask_copy(data->freqdomain_cpus,
>
