Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1647977 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH] x86/ACPI/cstate: Allow ACPI C1 FFH MWAIT use on AMD systems

Started byPavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
First post2017-05-23 14:30 +0200
Last post2017-05-24 20:20 +0200
Articles 2 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: [PATCH] x86/ACPI/cstate: Allow ACPI C1 FFH MWAIT use on AMD  systems Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2017-05-23 14:30 +0200
    RE: [PATCH] x86/ACPI/cstate: Allow ACPI C1 FFH MWAIT use on AMD  systems "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com> - 2017-05-24 20:20 +0200

#1647977 — Re: [PATCH] x86/ACPI/cstate: Allow ACPI C1 FFH MWAIT use on AMD systems

FromPavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Date2017-05-23 14:30 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86/ACPI/cstate: Allow ACPI C1 FFH MWAIT use on AMD systems
Message-ID<tKh6N-38u-3@gated-at.bofh.it>

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed 2017-05-17 09:20:19, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
> From: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>
> 
> AMD systems support the Monitor/Mwait instructions and these can be used
> for ACPI C1 in the same way as on Intel systems, with appropriate BIOS
> support.
> 
> Allow ffh_cstate_init() to succeed on AMD systems and make the Cstate
> description vendor-agnostic.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c | 5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c
> index 8a908ae..4c5dd5d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c
> @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static long acpi_processor_ffh_cstate_probe_cpu(void *_cx)
>  			cx->type);
>  	}
>  	snprintf(cx->desc,
> -			ACPI_CX_DESC_LEN, "ACPI FFH INTEL MWAIT 0x%x",
> +			ACPI_CX_DESC_LEN, "ACPI FFH X86 MWAIT 0x%x",
>  			cx->address);
>  out:
>  	return retval;

Are you sure no userspace depends on word "INTEL" there?

Does it make sense to include "X86" there?
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1649848

From"Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>
Date2017-05-24 20:20 +0200
Message-ID<tKJ34-5LE-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1647977
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pavel Machek [mailto:pavel@ucw.cz]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 8:25 AM
> To: Ghannam, Yazen <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>
> Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org; x86@kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org; rjw@rjwysocki.net; len.brown@intel.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/ACPI/cstate: Allow ACPI C1 FFH MWAIT use on
> AMD systems
> 
> On Wed 2017-05-17 09:20:19, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
> > From: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>
> >
> > AMD systems support the Monitor/Mwait instructions and these can be
> > used for ACPI C1 in the same way as on Intel systems, with appropriate
> > BIOS support.
> >
> > Allow ffh_cstate_init() to succeed on AMD systems and make the Cstate
> > description vendor-agnostic.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c | 5 +++--
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c
> > b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c index 8a908ae..4c5dd5d 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c
> > @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static long
> acpi_processor_ffh_cstate_probe_cpu(void *_cx)
> >  			cx->type);
> >  	}
> >  	snprintf(cx->desc,
> > -			ACPI_CX_DESC_LEN, "ACPI FFH INTEL MWAIT 0x%x",
> > +			ACPI_CX_DESC_LEN, "ACPI FFH X86 MWAIT 0x%x",
> >  			cx->address);
> >  out:
> >  	return retval;
> 
> Are you sure no userspace depends on word "INTEL" there?
> 

So far I've only seen this description printed by cpupower, and it's just for
information.

> Does it make sense to include "X86" there?

I think so, since MWAIT is available on systems from both Intel and AMD.
Also, this FFH implementation can be shared by both vendors.

Though, as I said above, this description seems to be purely informational,
so it's probably not significant either way. I can remove this if preferred.

Thanks,
Yazen

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web