Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/3] CPPC as a PID controller backend

[Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@gmail.com>]

On 10/09/2014 10:16 AM, Ashwin Chaugule wrote:
> Hi Dirk,
>
> On 9 October 2014 12:22, Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/08/2014 01:11 PM, Ashwin Chaugule wrote:
>>
>>> +static int __init acpi_pid_init(void)
>>> +{
>>> +       int cpu, rc = 0;
>>> +
>>
>>
>> You should add a check here to not bind to Intel CPU. The CPPC interface
>> was created to provided an ACPI interface to to hardware controlled P states
>> (HWP) described in Volume 3 section 14.4 of the Intel SDM.
>> intel_pstate will be enabling HWP by controlling the MSRs directly and
>> not using CPPC.
>>
>> Adding this check will keep us from having to fight load order since
>> this driver and intel_pstate are at the same init level.
>
> Do you have a recommendation for how to check for such CPUs? Would it
> make sense to deselect this driver if intel_pstate is chosen at
> compile time instead?

Probably the simplest is to change the depends line in Kconfig to:
	depends on PCC && !X86
This will keep your driver from being selected on X86 and the potentail
issue goes away.


>
> Thanks,
> Ashwin
>