On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:12:56PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:02:09PM +0100, Gioh Kim wrote: > > Add bit masking to read ApmTdpLimit precisely > > > > Signed-off-by: Gioh Kim <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c | 10 +++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c b/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c > > index f77eb97..4f695d8 100644 > > --- a/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c > > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c > > @@ -90,7 +90,15 @@ static ssize_t show_power(struct device *dev, > > pci_bus_read_config_dword(f4->bus, PCI_DEVFN(PCI_SLOT(f4->devfn), 5), > > REG_TDP_LIMIT3, &val); > > > > - tdp_limit = val >> 16; > > + /* > > + * On Carrizo and later platforms, ApmTdpLimit bit field > > + * is extended to 16:31 from 16:28. > > + */ > > + if (boot_cpu_data.x86 == 0x15 && boot_cpu_data.x86_model >= 0x60) > > + tdp_limit = val >> 16; > > + else > > + tdp_limit = (val >> 16) & 0x1fff; > > + > > curr_pwr_watts = ((u64)(tdp_limit + > > data->base_tdp)) << running_avg_range; > > curr_pwr_watts -= running_avg_capture; > > -- > > Acked-by: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]> > > Btw, Rui, you could consider unifying the code under a single > > if (boot_cpu_data.x86 == 0x15 && boot_cpu_data.x86_model >= 0x60) { > ... > > else > ... > > as with this patch you'll have two of those checks. Unified might be > better readable but that is for another patch. >
Make sence, I will do that. :-) Thanks, Rui
