Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 7 Dec 2020 21:26:10 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Wei Huang <whuang2@amd.com>
Cc:     Punit Agrawal <punitagrawal@gmail.com>, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
        wei.huang2@amd.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] cpufreq: acpi-cpufreq: Add processor to the
 ignore PSD override list
Message-ID: <20201207202610.GG20489@zn.tnic>
References: <20201125144847.3920-1-punitagrawal@gmail.com>
 <20201125144847.3920-3-punitagrawal@gmail.com>
 <cadb5d57-5aaf-79bc-e30e-502d5e522689@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cadb5d57-5aaf-79bc-e30e-502d5e522689@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 02:20:55PM -0600, Wei Huang wrote:
> In summary, this patch is fine if Punit already verified it. My only
> concern is the list can potentially increase over the time, and we will
> keep coming back to fix override_acpi_psd() function.

Can the detection be done by looking at those _PSD things instead of
comparing f/m/s?

And, alternatively, what is this fixing?

So what if some zen2 boxes have correct _PSD objects? Why do they need
to ignore the override?

Hmmm?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette