From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AE931A5BB2; Mon, 9 Jun 2025 21:15:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749503751; cv=none; b=oCjQbmrNY6BE7Rq5oJATISgjB6D3NrZerx1Yu2Qdl+GfyCmjdgR37rEDGGupFNOewWaIebhiobRWsC1PDq5FGH1rJ44dOtQLyYjww5cR76EpV4a6oVv3o+Jc3csAHF0tqesJbblAOwqBo2LJ6DQzt/MADvxDPGWNGduPLWouLB4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749503751; c=relaxed/simple; bh=PiSqi6dFxwzHY28QnZyhs9fDjjWyaMbcZYtrghdN060=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Z8pMcsJjKl9Jwv1sGM6so8X5HKCYum3xWNFtvcA8Z44Kbd4bzm/kO7n5vTTGdQFjqFjrW/aG+uJ1YMg4Zyh3PJ9BgE5G4h32Acu59fEVduEBGniGZw/k8sG2sAzYG8qf5GkgjqTYKpXarW5zJWivV1cqeOev5L84mvYLKbPd0Mc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=md06AXeF; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="md06AXeF" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net B080C41AA1 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1749503749; bh=xc2d2PmxfL/lZ9yj4rZgQ0pZfllt+P0rddqlvP+41Vo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=md06AXeFX8WtPEvxvb55tAk1TOPicy+mWIi3j39i4jXg65FC4ybe3Q2HW3fuc+tNv 2wEipGsQUUrEDaVdrtoWpZ0vuOSVzBOwoyUtV6fYClaGcUng2JnLqvy4nArAZFQI8f MO9crRTno70Np+io4nyXhzYikHoMPMoU+E8bf9fLy7ZW3+Fvf7i6kKjYLsvgAhhBcd JAQoH5d4odXPcUG4ugm0O8UX9MuHNXRR90/2Qbo6qd/9n3XvCQsQCdm3qC+B/Vv+0o m088oK6z3TKihQApl3kbkaSiHKjXmwmahlv0hET7OmCNZHRkMevd8PDITIrFwpYiiY Lg/emVVTjJuKg== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:2da9::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B080C41AA1; Mon, 9 Jun 2025 21:15:49 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: shouyeliu , ray.huang@amd.com, gautham.shenoy@amd.com, mario.limonciello@amd.com, perry.yuan@amd.com Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Shouye Liu Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: amd-pstate:fix minimum performance state label error In-Reply-To: <20250522070140.17557-1-shouyeliu@gmail.com> References: <20250522070140.17557-1-shouyeliu@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 15:15:48 -0600 Message-ID: <87zfeg8vln.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain shouyeliu writes: > In the AMD P-States Performance Scale diagram, the labels for "Max Perf" > and "Lowest Perf" were incorrectly used to define the range for > "Desired Perf".The "Desired performance target" should be bounded by the > "Maximum requested performance" and the "Minimum requested performance", > which corresponds to "Max Perf" and "Min Perf", respectively. > > Signed-off-by: Shouye Liu > --- > Documentation/admin-guide/pm/amd-pstate.rst | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Applied, thanks. jon