| Message ID | 1470874646-70570-2-git-send-email-srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers | show |
(adding Sudeep and Prashanth in c/c) On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 05:17:22PM -0700, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote: > Some newer x86 platforms have support for both _CPC and _PSS object. So > kernel config can have both ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS and ACPI_CPPC_LIB. So remove > restriction for ACPI_CPPC_LIB to build only when ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS is not > defined. > Also for legacy systems with only _PSS, we shouldn't bail out if > acpi_cppc_processor_probe() fails, if ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS is also defined. > > Signed-off-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> > --- > drivers/acpi/Kconfig | 1 - > drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 5 ++++- > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > index 445ce28..c6bb6aa 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > @@ -227,7 +227,6 @@ config ACPI_MCFG > config ACPI_CPPC_LIB > bool > depends on ACPI_PROCESSOR > - depends on !ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS > select MAILBOX > select PCC > help > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > index 0553aee..0e0b629 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > @@ -245,8 +245,11 @@ static int __acpi_processor_start(struct acpi_device *device) > return 0; > > result = acpi_cppc_processor_probe(pr); > - if (result) > + if (result) { > +#ifndef CONFIG_ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS > return -ENODEV; > +#endif > + } > > if (!cpuidle_get_driver() || cpuidle_get_driver() == &acpi_idle_driver) > acpi_processor_power_init(pr); If PSS is not defined and kernel fails to probe CPPC then why we should not execute acpi_processor_power_init()? Best regards, Alexey -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, 2016-08-12 at 10:13 +0100, Alexey Klimov wrote: > > > (adding Sudeep and Prashanth in c/c) > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 05:17:22PM -0700, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote: [...] > > result = acpi_cppc_processor_probe(pr); > > - if (result) > > + if (result) { > > +#ifndef CONFIG_ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS > > return -ENODEV; > > +#endif > > + } > > > > if (!cpuidle_get_driver() || cpuidle_get_driver() == > > &acpi_idle_driver) > > acpi_processor_power_init(pr); > If PSS is not defined and kernel fails to probe CPPC then why we > should not > execute acpi_processor_power_init()? Did I change the current behavior? Currently when acpi_cppc_processor_probe() fails, then -ENODEV is returned. Thanks, Srinivas > > Best regards, > Alexey > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" > in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Alexey, On 8/12/2016 3:13 AM, Alexey Klimov wrote: > (adding Sudeep and Prashanth in c/c) > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 05:17:22PM -0700, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote: >> Some newer x86 platforms have support for both _CPC and _PSS object. So >> kernel config can have both ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS and ACPI_CPPC_LIB. So remove >> restriction for ACPI_CPPC_LIB to build only when ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS is not >> defined. >> Also for legacy systems with only _PSS, we shouldn't bail out if >> acpi_cppc_processor_probe() fails, if ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS is also defined. >> >> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> >> --- >> drivers/acpi/Kconfig | 1 - >> drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 5 ++++- >> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig >> index 445ce28..c6bb6aa 100644 >> --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig >> @@ -227,7 +227,6 @@ config ACPI_MCFG >> config ACPI_CPPC_LIB >> bool >> depends on ACPI_PROCESSOR >> - depends on !ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS >> select MAILBOX >> select PCC >> help >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c >> index 0553aee..0e0b629 100644 >> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c >> @@ -245,8 +245,11 @@ static int __acpi_processor_start(struct acpi_device *device) >> return 0; >> >> result = acpi_cppc_processor_probe(pr); >> - if (result) >> + if (result) { >> +#ifndef CONFIG_ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS >> return -ENODEV; >> +#endif >> + } >> >> if (!cpuidle_get_driver() || cpuidle_get_driver() == &acpi_idle_driver) >> acpi_processor_power_init(pr); > If PSS is not defined and kernel fails to probe CPPC then why we should not > execute acpi_processor_power_init()? Returning on cppc probe failure looks like a bug. We can just print a warning and continue to acpi_processor_power_init(). Thanks, Prashanth -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi, On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Prakash, Prashanth <pprakash@codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi Alexey, > > On 8/12/2016 3:13 AM, Alexey Klimov wrote: >> (adding Sudeep and Prashanth in c/c) >> >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 05:17:22PM -0700, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote: >>> Some newer x86 platforms have support for both _CPC and _PSS object. So >>> kernel config can have both ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS and ACPI_CPPC_LIB. So remove >>> restriction for ACPI_CPPC_LIB to build only when ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS is not >>> defined. >>> Also for legacy systems with only _PSS, we shouldn't bail out if >>> acpi_cppc_processor_probe() fails, if ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS is also defined. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/acpi/Kconfig | 1 - >>> drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 5 ++++- >>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig >>> index 445ce28..c6bb6aa 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig >>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig >>> @@ -227,7 +227,6 @@ config ACPI_MCFG >>> config ACPI_CPPC_LIB >>> bool >>> depends on ACPI_PROCESSOR >>> - depends on !ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS >>> select MAILBOX >>> select PCC >>> help >>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c >>> index 0553aee..0e0b629 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c >>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c >>> @@ -245,8 +245,11 @@ static int __acpi_processor_start(struct acpi_device *device) >>> return 0; >>> >>> result = acpi_cppc_processor_probe(pr); >>> - if (result) >>> + if (result) { >>> +#ifndef CONFIG_ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS >>> return -ENODEV; >>> +#endif >>> + } >>> >>> if (!cpuidle_get_driver() || cpuidle_get_driver() == &acpi_idle_driver) >>> acpi_processor_power_init(pr); >> If PSS is not defined and kernel fails to probe CPPC then why we should not >> execute acpi_processor_power_init()? > Returning on cppc probe failure looks like a bug. We can just print > a warning and continue to acpi_processor_power_init(). Yes, it is. We should continue. I saw an issue about that. If the CPPC probe fails, CPUidle can NOT be registered. Thanks Hoan > > Thanks, > Prashanth > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Srinivas, On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> wrote: > Some newer x86 platforms have support for both _CPC and _PSS object. So > kernel config can have both ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS and ACPI_CPPC_LIB. So remove > restriction for ACPI_CPPC_LIB to build only when ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS is not > defined. > Also for legacy systems with only _PSS, we shouldn't bail out if > acpi_cppc_processor_probe() fails, if ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS is also defined. > > Signed-off-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> > --- > drivers/acpi/Kconfig | 1 - > drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 5 ++++- > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > index 445ce28..c6bb6aa 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > @@ -227,7 +227,6 @@ config ACPI_MCFG > config ACPI_CPPC_LIB > bool > depends on ACPI_PROCESSOR > - depends on !ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS From ACPI 6.1 spec, if _CPC is present, its use supersedes the use of PSS. So I think, config ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS should depend on !ACPI_CPPC_LIB. Thanks Hoan > select MAILBOX > select PCC > help > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > index 0553aee..0e0b629 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > @@ -245,8 +245,11 @@ static int __acpi_processor_start(struct acpi_device *device) > return 0; > > result = acpi_cppc_processor_probe(pr); > - if (result) > + if (result) { > +#ifndef CONFIG_ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS > return -ENODEV; > +#endif > + } > > if (!cpuidle_get_driver() || cpuidle_get_driver() == &acpi_idle_driver) > acpi_processor_power_init(pr); > -- > 2.7.4 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, 2016-08-12 at 09:35 -0700, Hoan Tran wrote: > Hi Srinivas, > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Srinivas Pandruvada > <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > Some newer x86 platforms have support for both _CPC and _PSS > > object. So > > kernel config can have both ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS and ACPI_CPPC_LIB. So > > remove > > restriction for ACPI_CPPC_LIB to build only when ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS > > is not > > defined. > > Also for legacy systems with only _PSS, we shouldn't bail out if > > acpi_cppc_processor_probe() fails, if ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS is also > > defined. > > > > Signed-off-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel > > .com> > > --- > > drivers/acpi/Kconfig | 1 - > > drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 5 ++++- > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > > index 445ce28..c6bb6aa 100644 > > --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > > @@ -227,7 +227,6 @@ config ACPI_MCFG > > config ACPI_CPPC_LIB > > bool > > depends on ACPI_PROCESSOR > > - depends on !ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS > From ACPI 6.1 spec, if _CPC is present, its use supersedes the use of > PSS. So I think, config ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS should depend on > !ACPI_CPPC_LIB. > Distro want to have a single binary kernel image, so they will turn on all configs. So this is not a compile time decision. On runtime if the ACPI contains both tables than _CPC should be used (but that also if the kernel is capable of handling _CPC, as legacy kernel will not). Thanks, Srinivas > Thanks > Hoan > > > > > select MAILBOX > > select PCC > > help > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > > b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > > index 0553aee..0e0b629 100644 > > --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > > @@ -245,8 +245,11 @@ static int __acpi_processor_start(struct > > acpi_device *device) > > return 0; > > > > result = acpi_cppc_processor_probe(pr); > > - if (result) > > + if (result) { > > +#ifndef CONFIG_ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS > > return -ENODEV; > > +#endif > > + } > > > > if (!cpuidle_get_driver() || cpuidle_get_driver() == > > &acpi_idle_driver) > > acpi_processor_power_init(pr); > > -- > > 2.7.4 > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux- > > acpi" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" > in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, 2016-08-12 at 09:32 -0700, Hoan Tran wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Prakash, Prashanth > <pprakash@codeaurora.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Alexey, > > > > On 8/12/2016 3:13 AM, Alexey Klimov wrote: > > > > > > (adding Sudeep and Prashanth in c/c) > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 05:17:22PM -0700, Srinivas Pandruvada > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Some newer x86 platforms have support for both _CPC and _PSS > > > > object. So > > > > kernel config can have both ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS and > > > > ACPI_CPPC_LIB. So remove > > > > restriction for ACPI_CPPC_LIB to build only when > > > > ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS is not > > > > defined. > > > > Also for legacy systems with only _PSS, we shouldn't bail out > > > > if > > > > acpi_cppc_processor_probe() fails, if ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS is also > > > > defined. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.i > > > > ntel.com> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/acpi/Kconfig | 1 - > > > > drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 5 ++++- > > > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > > > > index 445ce28..c6bb6aa 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > > > > @@ -227,7 +227,6 @@ config ACPI_MCFG > > > > config ACPI_CPPC_LIB > > > > bool > > > > depends on ACPI_PROCESSOR > > > > - depends on !ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS > > > > select MAILBOX > > > > select PCC > > > > help > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > > > > b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > > > > index 0553aee..0e0b629 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > > > > @@ -245,8 +245,11 @@ static int __acpi_processor_start(struct > > > > acpi_device *device) > > > > return 0; > > > > > > > > result = acpi_cppc_processor_probe(pr); > > > > - if (result) > > > > + if (result) { > > > > +#ifndef CONFIG_ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS > > > > return -ENODEV; > > > > +#endif > > > > + } > > > > > > > > if (!cpuidle_get_driver() || cpuidle_get_driver() == > > > > &acpi_idle_driver) > > > > acpi_processor_power_init(pr); > > > If PSS is not defined and kernel fails to probe CPPC then why we > > > should not > > > execute acpi_processor_power_init()? > > Returning on cppc probe failure looks like a bug. We can just print > > a warning and continue to acpi_processor_power_init(). > Yes, it is. We should continue. I saw an issue about that. If the > CPPC > probe fails, CPUidle can NOT be registered. I wanted to keep the existing functionality as is. But I can submit another patch on top of it to ignore cppc probe failure. Thanks, Srinivas > Thanks > Hoan > > > > > > > Thanks, > > Prashanth > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux- > > acpi" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Srinivas, On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2016-08-12 at 09:35 -0700, Hoan Tran wrote: >> Hi Srinivas, >> >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Srinivas Pandruvada >> <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> > >> > Some newer x86 platforms have support for both _CPC and _PSS >> > object. So >> > kernel config can have both ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS and ACPI_CPPC_LIB. So >> > remove >> > restriction for ACPI_CPPC_LIB to build only when ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS >> > is not >> > defined. >> > Also for legacy systems with only _PSS, we shouldn't bail out if >> > acpi_cppc_processor_probe() fails, if ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS is also >> > defined. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel >> > .com> >> > --- >> > drivers/acpi/Kconfig | 1 - >> > drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 5 ++++- >> > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig >> > index 445ce28..c6bb6aa 100644 >> > --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig >> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig >> > @@ -227,7 +227,6 @@ config ACPI_MCFG >> > config ACPI_CPPC_LIB >> > bool >> > depends on ACPI_PROCESSOR >> > - depends on !ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS >> From ACPI 6.1 spec, if _CPC is present, its use supersedes the use of >> PSS. So I think, config ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS should depend on >> !ACPI_CPPC_LIB. >> > Distro want to have a single binary kernel image, so they will turn on > all configs. So this is not a compile time decision. > On runtime if the ACPI contains both tables than _CPC should be used > (but that also if the kernel is capable of handling _CPC, as legacy > kernel will not). Agreed. If so, this "depends on" is not need, right ? And a runtime code will be added to decide which is used instead ? Thanks Hoan > > Thanks, > Srinivas > >> Thanks >> Hoan >> >> > >> > select MAILBOX >> > select PCC >> > help >> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c >> > b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c >> > index 0553aee..0e0b629 100644 >> > --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c >> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c >> > @@ -245,8 +245,11 @@ static int __acpi_processor_start(struct >> > acpi_device *device) >> > return 0; >> > >> > result = acpi_cppc_processor_probe(pr); >> > - if (result) >> > + if (result) { >> > +#ifndef CONFIG_ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS >> > return -ENODEV; >> > +#endif >> > + } >> > >> > if (!cpuidle_get_driver() || cpuidle_get_driver() == >> > &acpi_idle_driver) >> > acpi_processor_power_init(pr); >> > -- >> > 2.7.4 >> > >> > -- >> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux- >> > acpi" in >> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" >> in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, 2016-08-12 at 09:58 -0700, Hoan Tran wrote: > Hi Srinivas, > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Srinivas Pandruvada > <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2016-08-12 at 09:35 -0700, Hoan Tran wrote: > > > > > > Hi Srinivas, > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Srinivas Pandruvada > > > <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Some newer x86 platforms have support for both _CPC and _PSS > > > > object. So > > > > kernel config can have both ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS and > > > > ACPI_CPPC_LIB. So > > > > remove > > > > restriction for ACPI_CPPC_LIB to build only when > > > > ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS > > > > is not > > > > defined. > > > > Also for legacy systems with only _PSS, we shouldn't bail out > > > > if > > > > acpi_cppc_processor_probe() fails, if ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS is also > > > > defined. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.i > > > > ntel > > > > .com> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/acpi/Kconfig | 1 - > > > > drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 5 ++++- > > > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > > > > index 445ce28..c6bb6aa 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > > > > @@ -227,7 +227,6 @@ config ACPI_MCFG > > > > config ACPI_CPPC_LIB > > > > bool > > > > depends on ACPI_PROCESSOR > > > > - depends on !ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS > > > From ACPI 6.1 spec, if _CPC is present, its use supersedes the > > > use of > > > PSS. So I think, config ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS should depend on > > > !ACPI_CPPC_LIB. > > > > > Distro want to have a single binary kernel image, so they will turn > > on > > all configs. So this is not a compile time decision. > > On runtime if the ACPI contains both tables than _CPC should be > > used > > (but that also if the kernel is capable of handling _CPC, as legacy > > kernel will not). > Agreed. If so, this "depends on" is not need, right ? And a runtime > code will be added to decide which is used instead ? Yes, _CPC will be used if present. Thanks, Srinivas > > Thanks > Hoan > > > > > > > Thanks, > > Srinivas > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > Hoan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > select MAILBOX > > > > select PCC > > > > help > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > > > > b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > > > > index 0553aee..0e0b629 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > > > > @@ -245,8 +245,11 @@ static int __acpi_processor_start(struct > > > > acpi_device *device) > > > > return 0; > > > > > > > > result = acpi_cppc_processor_probe(pr); > > > > - if (result) > > > > + if (result) { > > > > +#ifndef CONFIG_ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS > > > > return -ENODEV; > > > > +#endif > > > > + } > > > > > > > > if (!cpuidle_get_driver() || cpuidle_get_driver() == > > > > &acpi_idle_driver) > > > > acpi_processor_power_init(pr); > > > > -- > > > > 2.7.4 > > > > > > > > -- > > > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe > > > > linux- > > > > acpi" in > > > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.h > > > > tml > > > -- > > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux- > > > pm" > > > in > > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htm > > > l > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" > in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig index 445ce28..c6bb6aa 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig @@ -227,7 +227,6 @@ config ACPI_MCFG config ACPI_CPPC_LIB bool depends on ACPI_PROCESSOR - depends on !ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS select MAILBOX select PCC help diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c index 0553aee..0e0b629 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c @@ -245,8 +245,11 @@ static int __acpi_processor_start(struct acpi_device *device) return 0; result = acpi_cppc_processor_probe(pr); - if (result) + if (result) { +#ifndef CONFIG_ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS return -ENODEV; +#endif + } if (!cpuidle_get_driver() || cpuidle_get_driver() == &acpi_idle_driver) acpi_processor_power_init(pr);
Some newer x86 platforms have support for both _CPC and _PSS object. So kernel config can have both ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS and ACPI_CPPC_LIB. So remove restriction for ACPI_CPPC_LIB to build only when ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS is not defined. Also for legacy systems with only _PSS, we shouldn't bail out if acpi_cppc_processor_probe() fails, if ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS is also defined. Signed-off-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> --- drivers/acpi/Kconfig | 1 - drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 5 ++++- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)