Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-103097-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:37:04 +0530
From: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>
To: Perry Yuan <perry.yuan@amd.com>
Cc: rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, Mario.Limonciello@amd.com,
	viresh.kumar@linaro.org, Ray.Huang@amd.com, Borislav.Petkov@amd.com,
	Alexander.Deucher@amd.com, Xinmei.Huang@amd.com,
	Xiaojian.Du@amd.com, Li.Meng@amd.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/7] cpufreq: amd-pstate: remove legacy set_boost
 callback for passive mode
Message-ID: <ZfLMSIptCObdf4pS@BLR-5CG11610CF.amd.com>
References: <cover.1710322310.git.perry.yuan@amd.com>
 <c9653c82afd9a11a7d3fa466f60d64d7e457968c.1710322310.git.perry.yuan@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <c9653c82afd9a11a7d3fa466f60d64d7e457968c.1710322310.git.perry.yuan@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount: 1
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:
	=?us-ascii?Q?Gci4jqTnjz2mYv4xIksOf5SmkCDpQSHmEJ8JC3UCbC0dhhUWrfMpOkzHC+OS?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Yh6OjnoFL5aYTHvL4wKQrzmFqFWpEHP8+RDusVgCOv7zBTlxKTszjr3FIPju?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?VsyMWLGR/VXDMPXb5/iCeA7FDome31W9lK1ccVgX+qDyMp5vfRmX+GJNr0iR?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?M+3txjI5T8W9EmNO3JictAlyw5UxGJRS7Ql4GnZZJdhc//QVy2KfI6a2o2ut?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?M1eq8AKmFbkCibgcv/C6YANedmsEJeX1iAmL6DBSuKIUPwDVLu7zu5r7Gmlx?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?X0nLTE6a8bW3SyryuGygWUGUzi+o10I4d9BVoTiRvIuLsevx9erZLg1s2xgQ?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?nAJFFt1Yzxg4g54NytckSCSD5iAZ/KUTIspSPZI79NF5QB3gIYs55AzAVwTU?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?SDiJAAv1op0lr6gtDeYvsXIdsxtCeo8WuhNk40u61D9GzKQ5IIzs7kcDV33X?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?3YBCKrnPtS7Ww3eT4/Mxl/0kbpRRz17EjxDSZpQ6oqRz5tWYfc6Yi3QEicNC?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?ptuLT5LnCsFtL64UiJRC2oFhoj8pPS2ehzdBFTIerpXzgQKbGEG5MVw9Rfhq?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?D2kJHENCs5pvH3ds3MHVNwVkjk4oFQ9+wq/Jj1RAZgJ8z2IQLEGoK7GuCYtD?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?5BRSbDYnhYPciwE7bgaUgXUY7fEWsGxuv4i8HjRkoHEL1vDYCZRVCSBmpYg6?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?//pEIjbRjdJrbvkfObOu5p9pZ2geR6RwhPjhDFL8LaQP9E3sqP6Ko+4hzyOz?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?xOJuwGDeeaYbbsLyDe+cqu49set4rXiHpfjOHvC3cwo+B+J4QCg7XTwySRBL?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?xLYPW0Krx1j+uyYqZPBfepwtVHCPs5J0fNg4+nXMPcf6sxaYDKx9l2ffgvpf?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?ebyPGAfnp1Rruepym0rLLm5tove9aEsahch7CWBjGBX1O2fAdMBGZuyXnka6?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?esNVbVnL3FvNBC0xDOrafkN1ZeRHMLI5uTIPlAX37f30hEYLvr5ed5nHhjob?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?LEJmwMuE/03JLT3TOPhd1a1WvMKIN/yvc3BZ59JYO/YOPhAxZdKbHuf83N08?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?XwkbwxJf9ZzOV4RQKVuGuzADKbBY115rUKwubK3duGkMzmm0uLUoo+iyyW9N?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?KQz7mQM91wqQTnln3T+brlowOQSqK4h2lDZBXcxGD5tElPlTnZZWKRN1N6Et?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?xzzMRiM0cUfZ1UeagI6sYO8H89gYH7q9d/vw5CUqcHEtLpWvrj5pWeabVSKV?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?6l1jYwqIDBKjEYbmKw0fU9z29W8f5ANOZqfdIYbg+nkEcfa0+6xAwhMiRdI+?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Vkp5Zln4LPYtuwM9i2AcW9XzT19qKfWmS1YJ7V0ORNdOvHSIaDgGSf5Vvx1e?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?ctmdNvVYmmJET/oBjDWJ/jdxG6aPBqc1ZAKtETas9G0AsgHo2bzyL5X1iKgE?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?3jadvQBI4jWguPxvYGZbbOwG2N60QyNzgvmQFqvtJt6rX/4Cw56DQBKaWDfg?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?vuuws9wclVMITZ+gPP2B5hJwnKcI31E8vp4ZN7hujhFjjyHuiw2IBCe4mqKN?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?X2Py7qr6lbHMiODhBm0eg1hJOlGWO1GLTDLvrx2w?=
X-OriginatorOrg: amd.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 587d4875-0321-4ead-29a0-08dc440e8406
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DS7PR12MB8252.namprd12.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Mar 2024 10:07:11.8414
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: saCvDj6iSzwhgM+jSXnLP2/52v7YOL4PMINuVx7dQArZCZ9idfP97PHpdTWXZyLO5VMkuNBEN9lUUwluMlunpg==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SA1PR12MB8947

Hello Perry,

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 06:04:43PM +0800, Perry Yuan wrote:
> With new freqency boost interface supported, legacy boost control
> doesn't make sense any more which only support passive mode.

Why is the legacy boost control restricted only to the passive mode ?

Can we not add .set_boost to amd_pstate_set_boost in
amd_pstate_epp_driver ?

--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.

> so it can remove the legacy set_boost interface from amd-pstate driver
> in case of there is conflict with new boost control logic.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Perry Yuan <perry.yuan@amd.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c | 1 -
>  include/linux/amd-pstate.h   | 2 --
>  2 files changed, 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> index d7afbded6e3d..4a24db868cb1 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> @@ -1689,7 +1689,6 @@ static struct cpufreq_driver amd_pstate_driver = {
>  	.exit		= amd_pstate_cpu_exit,
>  	.suspend	= amd_pstate_cpu_suspend,
>  	.resume		= amd_pstate_cpu_resume,
> -	.set_boost	= amd_pstate_set_boost,
>  	.update_limits	= amd_pstate_update_limits,
>  	.name		= "amd-pstate",
>  	.attr		= amd_pstate_attr,
> diff --git a/include/linux/amd-pstate.h b/include/linux/amd-pstate.h
> index c6e2a97913de..7130b297c522 100644
> --- a/include/linux/amd-pstate.h
> +++ b/include/linux/amd-pstate.h
> @@ -56,7 +56,6 @@ struct amd_aperf_mperf {
>   * @cur: Difference of Aperf/Mperf/tsc count between last and current sample
>   * @prev: Last Aperf/Mperf/tsc count value read from register
>   * @freq: current cpu frequency value
> - * @boost_supported: check whether the Processor or SBIOS supports boost mode
>   * @hw_prefcore: check whether HW supports preferred core featue.
>   * 		  Only when hw_prefcore and early prefcore param are true,
>   * 		  AMD P-State driver supports preferred core featue.
> @@ -93,7 +92,6 @@ struct amd_cpudata {
>  	struct amd_aperf_mperf prev;
>  
>  	u64	freq;
> -	bool	boost_supported;
>  	bool	hw_prefcore;
>  
>  	/* EPP feature related attributes*/
> -- 
> 2.34.1
>