Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 9 May 2023 18:00:07 -0600
From:   Kevin Locke <kevin@kevinlocke.name>
To:     Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@suse.com>
Cc:     rafael@kernel.org, lenb@kernel.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org,
        pmladek@suse.com, mcgrof@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ACPI: cpufreq: use a platform device to load ACPI PPC
 and PCC drivers
Message-ID: <ZFreh8SDMX67EaB6@kevinlocke.name>
Mail-Followup-To: Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@suse.com>, rafael@kernel.org,
        lenb@kernel.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, pmladek@suse.com,
        mcgrof@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230316151036.10181-1-petr.pavlu@suse.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230316151036.10181-1-petr.pavlu@suse.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2023-03-16 at 16:10 +0100, Petr Pavlu wrote:
> The patch extends the ACPI parsing logic to check the ACPI namespace if
> the PPC or PCC interface is present and creates a virtual platform
> device for each if it is available. The acpi-cpufreq and pcc-cpufreq
> drivers are then updated to map to these devices.
> 
> This allows to try loading acpi-cpufreq and pcc-cpufreq only once during
> boot and only if a given interface is available in the firmware.

As a result of this patch (691a637123470bfe63bccf5836ead40fac4c7fab)
my ThinkPad T430 with an i5-3320M CPU configured with
CONFIG_X86_INTEL_PSTATE=y and CONFIG_X86_ACPI_CPUFREQ=m (Debian's
amd64 kernel config) now logs

kernel: acpi-cpufreq: probe of acpi-cpufreq failed with error -17

during boot.  Presumably this occurs because loading acpi-cpufreq
returns -EEXIST when intel-pstate is already loaded (or built-in, as
in this case).  I'm unsure why the message was not printed before;
perhaps a difference between driver probing for platform and cpu bus
types?  Although the error message is not wrong, it may lead to
unnecessary investigation by sysadmins, as it did for me.  I thought
it was worth reporting so you can consider whether the change is
desirable.

Cheers,
Kevin