From: Mario Limonciello <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Perry Yuan <[email protected]>
---
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
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 8:35 AM Perry Yuan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Mario Limonciello <[email protected]>
>
> 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 <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Perry Yuan <[email protected]>
> ---
> 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
>
On 6/15/23 10:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 8:35 AM Perry Yuan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> From: Mario Limonciello <[email protected]>
>>
>> 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 <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Perry Yuan <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> 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
>>
On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 4:53 AM Mario Limonciello
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 6/15/23 10:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 8:35 AM Perry Yuan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Mario Limonciello <[email protected]>
> >>
> >> 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.