Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] cpufreq: acpi-cpufreq: Use identifiers for AMD processor family

[Punit Agrawal <punitagrawal@gmail.com>]

Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> writes:

> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 11:48:47PM +0900, Punit Agrawal wrote:
>> Replace the raw values for AMD processor family with recently
>> introduced identifier macros to improve code readability and
>> maintainability.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Punit Agrawal <punitagrawal@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c | 6 +++---
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
>> index 29f1cd93541e..d8b8300ae9e0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
>> @@ -202,8 +202,8 @@ static int override_acpi_psd(unsigned int cpu_id)
>>  		 * CPU's before Zen3 (except some Zen2) need the
>>  		 * override.
>>  		 */
>> -		return (c->x86 < 0x19) &&
>> -			!(c->x86 == 0x17 && c->x86_model == 0x60 &&
>> +		return (c->x86 < AMD_FAM_ZEN3) &&
>> +			!(c->x86 == AMD_FAM_ZEN && c->x86_model == 0x60 &&
>
> This is what I mean - that's Zen2 as the comment above says so having
>
> 		c->x86 == AMD_FAM_ZEN
>
> is not enough. And you have a comment above it stating which CPUs are
> matched here so I'm not sure those family defines make it any better...

Hmm.. for this series, it probably doesn't add much value - especially
with the comment and macro mismatch.

The last two patches were posted to check if there's wider interest in
the changes. If the macro conversion is useful, I can split the patches
from this series into a separate set with more sites being updated. I'll
wait to see if there's any further feedback.

Thanks,
Punit