[Public]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2025 7:07 PM
> To: Penny, Zheng <penny.zh...@amd.com>
> Cc: Huang, Ray <ray.hu...@amd.com>; Anthony PERARD
> <anthony.per...@vates.tech>; Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>;
> Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com>; xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 8/8] xen/cpufreq: Adapt SET/GET_CPUFREQ_CPPC
> xen_sysctl_pm_op for amd-cppc driver
>
> On 28.08.2025 12:06, Penny Zheng wrote:
> > @@ -154,6 +156,17 @@ static int get_cpufreq_para(struct xen_sysctl_pm_op
> *op)
> > else
> > strlcpy(op->u.get_para.scaling_driver, "Unknown",
> > CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN);
> >
> > + /*
> > + * In CPPC active mode, we are borrowing governor field to indicate
> > + * policy info.
> > + */
> > + if ( policy->governor->name[0] )
> > + strlcpy(op->u.get_para.u.s.scaling_governor,
> > + policy->governor->name, CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN);
> > + else
> > + strlcpy(op->u.get_para.u.s.scaling_governor, "Unknown",
> > + CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN);
>
> Isn't pulling this ...
>
> > if ( !cpufreq_is_governorless(op->cpuid) )
> > {
> > if ( !(scaling_available_governors =
>
> ... out of this if()'s body going to affect HWP? It's not clear to me whether
> that would
> be entirely benign.
>
HWP has its own unique "hwp" governor. So, imo, it may not affect.
> Jan
