From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Prakash, Prashanth" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] acpi: cppc: Allow build with ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS config Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 10:04:25 -0600 Message-ID: <44dbbac5-92e6-d4f9-df92-50e1129d2734@codeaurora.org> References: <1470874646-70570-1-git-send-email-srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> <1470874646-70570-2-git-send-email-srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> <20160812091337.GA7017@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:57576 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752923AbcHLQE2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Aug 2016 12:04:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160812091337.GA7017@arm.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Alexey Klimov , Srinivas Pandruvada Cc: rjw@rjwysocki.net, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org, sudeep.holla@arm.com 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 >> --- >> 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