On 12/7/20 4:30 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 04:07:52PM -0600, Wei Huang wrote:
>> I think we shouldn't override zen2 if _PSD is correct. In my opinion,
>> there are two approaches:
>>
>> * Keep override_acpi_psd()
>> Let us keep the original quirk and override_acpi_psd() function. Over
>> the time, people may want to add new CPUs to override_acpi_psd(). The
>> maintainer may declare that only CPUs >= family 17h will be fixed, to
>> avoid exploding the check-list.
>>
>> * Remove the quirk completely
>> We can completely remove commit acd316248205 ("acpi-cpufreq: Add quirk
>> to disable _PSD usage on all AMD CPUs")? I am not sure what "AMD desktop
>> boards" was referring to in the original commit message of acd316248205.
>> Maybe such machines aren't in use anymore.
>
> * Third option: do not do anything. Why?
I am fine with this option, unless Punit can prove me that I am wrong,
(i.e. some Zen2 is broken because of acd316248205).
>
> - Let sleeping dogs lie and leave the workaround acd316248205 for old
> machines.
>
> - Make a clear cut that the override is not needed from Zen3 on, i.e.,
> your patch
>
> 5368512abe08 ("acpi-cpufreq: Honor _PSD table setting on new AMD CPUs")
>
>
> Punit's commit message reads "...indicates that the override is not
> required for Zen3 onwards, it seems that domain information can be
> trusted even on certain earlier systems."
>
> That's not nearly a justification in my book to do this on anything < Zen3.
>
> This way you have a clear cut, you don't need to deal with adding any
> more models to override_acpi_psd() and all is good.
>
> Unless there's a better reason to skip the override on machines < Zen3
> but I haven't heard any so far...
>
> Thx.
>
