Hello,
On Mon, 2015-07-13 at 19:39 +0530, Shilpasri G Bhat wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c
> b/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c
> index d0c18c9..1f59958 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c
> @@ -414,6 +415,71 @@ static struct notifier_block powernv_cpufreq_reboot_nb =
> {
> .notifier_call = powernv_cpufreq_reboot_notifier,
> };
>
> +static char throttle_reason[][30] = {
> + "No throttling",
> + "Power Cap",
> + "Processor Over Temperature",
> + "Power Supply Failure",
> + "Over Current",
> + "OCC Reset"
> + };
> +
> +static int powernv_cpufreq_occ_msg(struct notifier_block *nb,
> + unsigned long msg_type, void *_msg)
> +{
> + struct opal_msg *msg = _msg;
> + struct opal_occ_msg omsg;
> +
> + if (msg_type != OPAL_MSG_OCC)
> + return 0;
> +
> + memcpy(&omsg, msg->params, sizeof(omsg));
You need to ensure the of the members of struct opal_occ_msg are in the
correct byte order when copying them over.
Have you tested this code with in a little endian configuration?
Do the messages you're sending make sense for a system that has a BMC
instead of a FSP?
Cheers,
Joel
> +
> + switch (omsg.type) {
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
