On 06.05.2025 07:56, Penny, Zheng wrote:
> [Public]
>
> Hi,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
>> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2025 11:32 PM
>> To: Penny, Zheng <penny.zh...@amd.com>
>> Cc: Huang, Ray <ray.hu...@amd.com>; Andrew Cooper
>> <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Anthony PERARD <anthony.per...@vates.tech>;
>> Orzel, Michal <michal.or...@amd.com>; Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org>; Roger
>> Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com>; Stefano Stabellini
>> <sstabell...@kernel.org>;
>> xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/15] xen/cpufreq: extract _PSD info from "struct
>> xen_processor_performance"
>>
>> On 14.04.2025 09:40, Penny Zheng wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/include/public/platform.h
>>> +++ b/xen/include/public/platform.h
>>> @@ -440,6 +440,11 @@ struct xen_psd_package {
>>> uint64_t num_processors;
>>> };
>>>
>>> +/* Coordination type value */
>>> +#define XEN_CPUPERF_SHARED_TYPE_HW 1 /* HW does needed
>> coordination */
>>> +#define XEN_CPUPERF_SHARED_TYPE_ALL 2 /* All dependent CPUs
>> should
>>> +set freq */ #define XEN_CPUPERF_SHARED_TYPE_ANY 3 /* Freq can be
>> set
>>> +from any dependent CPU */
>>> +
>>> struct xen_processor_performance {
>>> uint32_t flags; /* flag for Px sub info type */
>>> uint32_t platform_limit; /* Platform limitation on freq usage */
>>> @@ -449,10 +454,7 @@ struct xen_processor_performance {
>>> XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_processor_px_t) states;
>>> struct xen_psd_package domain_info;
>>> /* Coordination type of this processor */
>>> -#define XEN_CPUPERF_SHARED_TYPE_HW 1 /* HW does needed
>> coordination */
>>> -#define XEN_CPUPERF_SHARED_TYPE_ALL 2 /* All dependent CPUs
>> should
>>> set freq */ -#define XEN_CPUPERF_SHARED_TYPE_ANY 3 /* Freq can be set
>> from any dependent CPU */
>>> - uint32_t shared_type;
>>> + uint32_t shared_type; /* XEN_CPUPERF_SHARED_TYPE_xxx */
>>> };
>>> typedef struct xen_processor_performance xen_processor_performance_t;
>>> DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_processor_performance_t);
>>
>> What's this movement about? In the public interface nothing changes?
>
> As we will have shared type in "struct xen_processor_cppc" too, maybe the
> definition would like to live
> at more common place, then it could be shared?
> Living inside "struct xen_processor_performance" looks like internal values
> for internal field.
> If it breaks the public interface some way, I'll change it back and duplicate
> the definition in "struct xen_processor_cppc" too
I don't think it would break anything, but I also don't see any need for the
movement. And generally we prefer to avoid unnecessary code churn.
Jan
