On Fri, 17 Jul 2015, Laura Abbott wrote:
> v2: Tweaked a few names to be more descriptive
Descriptive by some definition of descriptive. See below.
> +static void init_intel_energy_perf(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> +{
> + /*
> + * Initialize MSR_IA32_ENERGY_PERF_BIAS if BIOS did not.
> + * x86_energy_perf_policy(8) is available to change it at run-time
> + */
> + if (cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_EPB)) {
Make this
if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_EPB))
return;
and spare the extra indentation level.
> + u64 epb;
> + rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_ENERGY_PERF_BIAS, epb);
> + if ((epb & 0xF) == ENERGY_PERF_BIAS_PERFORMANCE) {
Ditto
> + pr_warn_once("ENERGY_PERF_BIAS: Set to 'normal', was
> 'performance'\n");
> + pr_warn_once("ENERGY_PERF_BIAS: View and update with
> x86_energy_perf_policy(8)\n");
> + epb = (epb & ~0xF) | ENERGY_PERF_BIAS_NORMAL;
> + wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_ENERGY_PERF_BIAS, epb);
> + }
> + }
> +}
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> @@ -747,6 +752,7 @@ static const struct cpu_dev intel_cpu_dev = {
> .c_detect_tlb = intel_detect_tlb,
> .c_early_init = early_init_intel,
> .c_init = init_intel,
> + .c_bsp_resume = init_intel_energy_perf,
Looking at the resulting code I have no idea WHY
init_intel_energy_perf is set here. So much for descriptive.
This really wants to be bsp_resume() or something like this (add the
pointless intel prefix if it makes your managers happy). That _IS_
actually descriptive.
static void bsp_resume(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
{
/*
* Some reasonable comment WHY we call this here.
*/
init_intel_energy_perf(c);
}
Aside of documenting what that resume thing is for and why
init_intel_energy_perf() needs to be called, I'm quite sure that this
will fill up pretty fast with other stuff which gets lost across S/R.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
