On Friday, March 29, 2019 9:18:04 PM CET Ghannam, Yazen wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > On Behalf Of Pandruvada, Srinivas > > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 10:48 AM > > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Natarajan, Janakarajan > > <[email protected]>; linux- > > [email protected]; [email protected] > > Cc: Ghannam, Yazen <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; Moore, Robert > > <[email protected]>; Schmauss, Erik <[email protected]>; > > [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] acpi/cppc: Add support for optional CPPC registers > > > > On Fri, 2019-03-22 at 20:26 +0000, Natarajan, Janakarajan wrote: > > > From: Yazen Ghannam <[email protected]> > > > > > > Newer AMD processors support a subset of the optional CPPC registers. > > > Create show, store and helper routines for supported CPPC registers. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yazen Ghannam <[email protected]> > > > [ carved out into a patch, cleaned up, productized ] > > > Signed-off-by: Janakarajan Natarajan <[email protected]> > > > > > > > [..] > > > > > + /* desired_perf is the only mandatory value in perf_ctrls */ > > > + if (cpc_read(cpu, desired_reg, &desired)) > > > + ret = -EFAULT; > > > + > > > + if (CPC_SUPPORTED(max_reg) && cpc_read(cpu, max_reg, &max)) > > > + ret = -EFAULT; > > > + > > We should create and use different macro other than CPPC_SUPPORTED. > > CPC_SUPPORTED doesn't validate the correctness of object type for a > > field. For example "Maximum Performance Register" can only be buffer > > not integer. In this way invalid field definitions can be ignored. > > > > So create something like "CPPC_SUPPORTED_BUFFER" for buffer-only registers? > > And then buffer/integer registers will continue to use "CPPC_SUPPORTED". > > These seem to be the only two cases at this time. Is this okay?
Yes, something like that. Thanks, Rafael
