On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 11:07 AM Yunfeng Ye wrote:
>
> It's not a good way to access phys_proc_id and cpu_die_id directly.
> So using topology_physical_package_id(cpu) and topology_die_id(cpu)
> instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yunfeng Ye
> ---
> drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c | 6 +++---
> 1 f
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 11:07 AM Yunfeng Ye wrote:
>
> It's not a good way to access phys_proc_id and cpu_die_id directly.
> So using topology_physical_package_id(cpu) and topology_die_id(cpu)
> instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yunfeng Ye
Srinivas, Rui, any concerns?
> ---
> drivers/powercap/intel_
On Fri, 2021-02-05 at 13:45 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 11:07 AM Yunfeng Ye
> wrote:
> > It's not a good way to access phys_proc_id and cpu_die_id directly.
> > So using topology_physical_package_id(cpu) and topology_die_id(cpu)
> > instead.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yu
It's not a good way to access phys_proc_id and cpu_die_id directly.
So using topology_physical_package_id(cpu) and topology_die_id(cpu)
instead.
Signed-off-by: Yunfeng Ye
---
drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/po
4 matches
Mail list logo