On 27.05.2025 10:48, Penny Zheng wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/amd.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/amd.c
> @@ -583,12 +583,40 @@ static void amd_get_topology(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> : c->cpu_core_id);
> }
>
> +static unsigned int attr_const amd_parse_freq(unsigned int family,
> + unsigned int value)
> +{
> + unsigned int freq = 0;
> +
> + switch (family) {
> + case 0x10 ... 0x16:
> + freq = (((value & 0x3f) + 0x10) * 100) >> ((value >> 6) & 7);
> + break;
> +
> + case 0x17 ... 0x19:
> + freq = ((value & 0xff) * 25 * 8) / ((value >> 8) & 0x3f);
> + break;
> +
> + case 0x1A:
> + freq = (value & 0xfff) * 5;
> + break;
> +
> + default:
> + printk(XENLOG_ERR
> + "Unsupported cpu family 0x%x on cpufreq parsing",
> + family);
I think I requested before (elsewhere) to prefer %#x over 0x%x.
However, why the log message? With ...
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + return freq;
> +}
> +
> void amd_log_freq(const struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> {
> unsigned int idx = 0, h;
> uint64_t hi, lo, val;
>
> - if (c->x86 < 0x10 || c->x86 > 0x19 ||
> + if (c->x86 < 0x10 || c->x86 > 0x1A ||
... this condition, there simply could be ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() there? Happy to
adjust while committing, so long as you agree. With the adjustment:
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Jan
