On 10.12.2025 15:11, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h >> @@ -115,14 +115,6 @@ static inline bool boot_cpu_has(unsigned >> } >> >> #define CPUID_PM_LEAF 6 >> -#define CPUID6_EAX_HWP BIT(7, U) >> -#define CPUID6_EAX_HWP_NOTIFICATION BIT(8, U) >> -#define CPUID6_EAX_HWP_ACTIVITY_WINDOW BIT(9, U) >> -#define CPUID6_EAX_HWP_ENERGY_PERFORMANCE_PREFERENCE BIT(10, U) >> -#define CPUID6_EAX_HWP_PACKAGE_LEVEL_REQUEST BIT(11, U) >> -#define CPUID6_EAX_HDC BIT(13, U) >> -#define CPUID6_EAX_HWP_PECI BIT(16, U) >> -#define CPUID6_EAX_HW_FEEDBACK BIT(19, U) >> >> /* CPUID level 0x00000001.edx */ >> #define cpu_has_fpu 1 >> @@ -179,6 +171,14 @@ static inline bool boot_cpu_has(unsigned >> /* CPUID level 0x00000006.eax */ >> #define cpu_has_turbo host_cpu_policy.basic.turbo >> #define cpu_has_arat host_cpu_policy.basic.arat >> +#define cpu_has_hwp host_cpu_policy.basic.hwp >> +#define cpu_has_hwp_notification host_cpu_policy.basic.hwp_notification >> +#define cpu_has_hwp_activity_window >> host_cpu_policy.basic.hwp_activity_window >> +#define cpu_has_hwp_epp host_cpu_policy.basic.hwp_epp >> +#define cpu_has_hwp_plr host_cpu_policy.basic.hwp_plr >> +#define cpu_has_hdc host_cpu_policy.basic.hdc >> +#define cpu_has_hwp_peci host_cpu_policy.basic.hwp_peci >> +#define cpu_has_hw_feedback host_cpu_policy.basic.hw_feedback > > The indentation of these final 5 is one-too-few spaces. > > I can't help but feel that notification could be shortened to notify. > Except upon looking in the SDM, it's named HWP_INTERRUPT because it > enumerates MSR_HWP_INTERRUPT. > > Similarly, HWP_PLR is really HWP_REQUEST_PKG because it enumerates > MSR_HWP_REQUEST_PKG. > > ACTIVITY_WINDOW and EPP are wonky because they're out of order WRT > PLR/REQUEST_PKG. It clearly means they all came in together, but have > SKU controls. > > But I digress. ACTIVITY_WINDOW can probably be shortened to just > WINDOW, and that fixes the two egregiously long ones.
To be honest, I see only one of two options: Either we stick to what we had settled on when the HWP driver went in (switching to acronyms where helpful), or we strictly follow the SDM. In the latter case I think I will need to split this patch, for every of the renames to be separate (to be easier to verify). And the naming decisions then want applying in patch 1 as well. Unless I hear otherwise (soon), I'll go the "strictly per SDM" route. Still, the union-or-not question in patch 1 also needs sorting, so I'm dependent anyway upon you replying in a somewhat timely manner. Jan
