From: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com>
To: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Cc: rafael@kernel.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, lenb@kernel.org,
robert.moore@intel.com, corbet@lwn.net, pierre.gondois@arm.com,
zhenglifeng1@huawei.com, rdunlap@infradead.org,
ray.huang@amd.com, gautham.shenoy@amd.com,
mario.limonciello@amd.com, perry.yuan@amd.com,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, acpica-devel@lists.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org,
treding@nvidia.com, jonathanh@nvidia.com, vsethi@nvidia.com,
ksitaraman@nvidia.com, sanjayc@nvidia.com, bbasu@nvidia.com,
sumitg@nvidia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/8] ACPI: CPPC: extend APIs to support auto_sel and epp
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 18:42:38 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <acb19233-1ab1-4c6e-a150-5657daa50846@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aPigDd0QTiRjey7K@arm.com>
Hi Ionela,
Thank you for the comments.
On 22/10/25 14:42, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> Hi Sumit,
>
> On Wednesday 01 Oct 2025 at 20:30:59 (+0530), Sumit Gupta wrote:
>> - Add auto_sel read support in cppc_get_perf_caps().
>> - Add write of both auto_sel and energy_perf in cppc_set_epp_perf().
>> - Remove redundant energy_perf field from 'struct cppc_perf_caps' as
>> the same is available in 'struct cppc_perf_ctrls' which is used.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com>
>> ---
> [..]
>> @@ -1555,6 +1559,8 @@ int cppc_set_epp_perf(int cpu, struct cppc_perf_ctrls *perf_ctrls, bool enable)
>> struct cpc_register_resource *auto_sel_reg;
>> struct cpc_desc *cpc_desc = per_cpu(cpc_desc_ptr, cpu);
>> struct cppc_pcc_data *pcc_ss_data = NULL;
>> + bool autosel_support_in_ffh_or_sysmem;
>> + bool epp_support_in_ffh_or_sysmem;
>> int ret;
>>
>> if (!cpc_desc) {
>> @@ -1565,6 +1571,11 @@ int cppc_set_epp_perf(int cpu, struct cppc_perf_ctrls *perf_ctrls, bool enable)
>> auto_sel_reg = &cpc_desc->cpc_regs[AUTO_SEL_ENABLE];
>> epp_set_reg = &cpc_desc->cpc_regs[ENERGY_PERF];
>>
>> + epp_support_in_ffh_or_sysmem = CPC_SUPPORTED(epp_set_reg) &&
>> + (CPC_IN_FFH(epp_set_reg) || CPC_IN_SYSTEM_MEMORY(epp_set_reg));
>> + autosel_support_in_ffh_or_sysmem = CPC_SUPPORTED(auto_sel_reg) &&
>> + (CPC_IN_FFH(auto_sel_reg) || CPC_IN_SYSTEM_MEMORY(auto_sel_reg));
>> +
>> if (CPC_IN_PCC(epp_set_reg) || CPC_IN_PCC(auto_sel_reg)) {
>> if (pcc_ss_id < 0) {
>> pr_debug("Invalid pcc_ss_id for CPU:%d\n", cpu);
>> @@ -1590,8 +1601,19 @@ int cppc_set_epp_perf(int cpu, struct cppc_perf_ctrls *perf_ctrls, bool enable)
>> ret = send_pcc_cmd(pcc_ss_id, CMD_WRITE);
>> up_write(&pcc_ss_data->pcc_lock);
>> } else if (osc_cpc_flexible_adr_space_confirmed &&
>> - CPC_SUPPORTED(epp_set_reg) && CPC_IN_FFH(epp_set_reg)) {
>> + epp_support_in_ffh_or_sysmem && autosel_support_in_ffh_or_sysmem) {
> Isn't this problematic for when auto-select is an integer set to 1 or it's
> not present at all? In those cases the EPP register won't be written and
> -ENOTSUPP will be returned.
>
> I suppose for the case when auto-select is not present at all in _CPC
> (it's an optional attribute) it's not very clear what one should do
> regarding writing the EPP register. The specification mentions that
> "Writes to this register only have meaning when Autonomous Selection
> is enabled.". From my perspective the OS should not block writes to the
> EPP register for this case, as autonomous selection might still be
> enabled but not exposed to the OS.
>
> Thanks,
> Ionela.
Will change in v4 to write them independently as below.
-------------
} else if (osc_cpc_flexible_adr_space_confirmed) {
if (!epp_support_in_ffh_or_sysmem &&
!autosel_support_in_ffh_or_sysmem) {
ret = -ENOTSUPP;
} else {
if (autosel_support_in_ffh_or_sysmem) {
ret = cpc_write(cpu, auto_sel_reg, enable);
if (ret)
return ret;
}
if (epp_support_in_ffh_or_sysmem) {
ret = cpc_write(cpu, epp_set_reg,
perf_ctrls->energy_perf);
if (ret)
return ret;
}
}
} else {
ret = -ENOTSUPP;
}
if (ret == -ENOTSUPP)
pr_debug("_CPC in PCC and _CPC in FFH are not
supported\n");
-------------
Thank you,
Sumit Gupta
>> + ret = cpc_write(cpu, auto_sel_reg, enable);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + pr_debug("Failed to write auto_sel=%d for CPU:%d\n", enable, cpu);
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> +
>> ret = cpc_write(cpu, epp_set_reg, perf_ctrls->energy_perf);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + pr_debug("Failed to write energy_perf=%u for CPU:%d\n",
>> + perf_ctrls->energy_perf, cpu);
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> } else {
>> ret = -ENOTSUPP;
>> pr_debug("_CPC in PCC and _CPC in FFH are not supported\n");
> [..]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-24 13:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-01 15:00 [PATCH v3 0/8] Enhanced autonomous selection and improvements Sumit Gupta
2025-10-01 15:00 ` [PATCH v3 1/8] cpufreq: CPPC: Add generic helpers for sysfs show/store Sumit Gupta
2025-10-10 3:24 ` Jie Zhan
2025-10-13 12:51 ` Sumit Gupta
2025-10-01 15:00 ` [PATCH v3 2/8] ACPI: CPPC: Add cppc_get_perf() API to read performance controls Sumit Gupta
2025-10-01 15:00 ` [PATCH v3 3/8] ACPI: CPPC: extend APIs to support auto_sel and epp Sumit Gupta
2025-10-22 9:12 ` Ionela Voinescu
2025-10-24 13:12 ` Sumit Gupta [this message]
2025-10-01 15:01 ` [PATCH v3 4/8] ACPI: CPPC: add APIs and sysfs interface for min/max_perf Sumit Gupta
2025-10-22 10:58 ` Ionela Voinescu
2025-10-24 13:22 ` Sumit Gupta
2025-10-01 15:01 ` [PATCH v3 5/8] ACPI: CPPC: add APIs and sysfs interface for perf_limited register Sumit Gupta
2025-10-01 15:01 ` [PATCH v3 6/8] cpufreq: CPPC: Add sysfs for min/max_perf and perf_limited Sumit Gupta
2025-10-01 17:03 ` Mario Limonciello
2025-10-08 10:16 ` Sumit Gupta
2025-10-10 3:29 ` Jie Zhan
2025-10-13 11:59 ` Sumit Gupta
2025-10-22 12:02 ` Ionela Voinescu
2025-10-24 13:32 ` Sumit Gupta
2025-10-01 15:01 ` [PATCH v3 7/8] cpufreq: CPPC: update policy min/max when toggling auto_select Sumit Gupta
2025-10-01 15:01 ` [PATCH v3 8/8] cpufreq: CPPC: add autonomous mode boot parameter support Sumit Gupta
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=acb19233-1ab1-4c6e-a150-5657daa50846@nvidia.com \
--to=sumitg@nvidia.com \
--cc=acpica-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=bbasu@nvidia.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
--cc=ionela.voinescu@arm.com \
--cc=jonathanh@nvidia.com \
--cc=ksitaraman@nvidia.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mario.limonciello@amd.com \
--cc=perry.yuan@amd.com \
--cc=pierre.gondois@arm.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=ray.huang@amd.com \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=robert.moore@intel.com \
--cc=sanjayc@nvidia.com \
--cc=treding@nvidia.com \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=vsethi@nvidia.com \
--cc=zhenglifeng1@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox