From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/ACPI/cstate: Allow ACPI C1 FFH MWAIT use on AMD systems Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 14:24:39 +0200 Message-ID: <20170523122439.GA7483@amd> References: <1495030819-4347-1-git-send-email-Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY" Return-path: Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:52663 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1763841AbdEWMYl (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 May 2017 08:24:41 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1495030819-4347-1-git-send-email-Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Yazen Ghannam Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, len.brown@intel.com --OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed 2017-05-17 09:20:19, Yazen Ghannam wrote: > From: Yazen Ghannam >=20 > AMD systems support the Monitor/Mwait instructions and these can be used > for ACPI C1 in the same way as on Intel systems, with appropriate BIOS > support. >=20 > Allow ffh_cstate_init() to succeed on AMD systems and make the Cstate > description vendor-agnostic. >=20 > Signed-off-by: Yazen Ghannam > --- > arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >=20 > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c > index 8a908ae..4c5dd5d 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c > @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static long acpi_processor_ffh_cstate_probe_cpu(void = *_cx) > cx->type); > } > snprintf(cx->desc, > - ACPI_CX_DESC_LEN, "ACPI FFH INTEL MWAIT 0x%x", > + ACPI_CX_DESC_LEN, "ACPI FFH X86 MWAIT 0x%x", > cx->address); > out: > return retval; Are you sure no userspace depends on word "INTEL" there? Does it make sense to include "X86" there? Pavel --=20 (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html --OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlkkKgYACgkQMOfwapXb+vIzUACfagQdVoS3+2ROCibAPakhgUsM DZMAn1zX6mMR5R0NkuXj+VSswm3w8ko+ =iuFb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY--