From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753962AbcA0LND (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2016 06:13:03 -0500 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:35447 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753158AbcA0LNA (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2016 06:13:00 -0500 Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 12:12:56 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: Gioh Kim Cc: ray.huang@amd.com, linux@roeck-us.net, lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] hwmon: (fam15h_power) Add bit masking for tdp_limit Message-ID: <20160127111256.GG30712@pd.tnic> References: <1453892529-17120-1-git-send-email-gi-oh.kim@profitbricks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1453892529-17120-1-git-send-email-gi-oh.kim@profitbricks.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:02:09PM +0100, Gioh Kim wrote: > Add bit masking to read ApmTdpLimit precisely > > Signed-off-by: Gioh Kim > --- > drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c | 10 +++++++++- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c b/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c > index f77eb97..4f695d8 100644 > --- a/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c > @@ -90,7 +90,15 @@ static ssize_t show_power(struct device *dev, > pci_bus_read_config_dword(f4->bus, PCI_DEVFN(PCI_SLOT(f4->devfn), 5), > REG_TDP_LIMIT3, &val); > > - tdp_limit = val >> 16; > + /* > + * On Carrizo and later platforms, ApmTdpLimit bit field > + * is extended to 16:31 from 16:28. > + */ > + if (boot_cpu_data.x86 == 0x15 && boot_cpu_data.x86_model >= 0x60) > + tdp_limit = val >> 16; > + else > + tdp_limit = (val >> 16) & 0x1fff; > + > curr_pwr_watts = ((u64)(tdp_limit + > data->base_tdp)) << running_avg_range; > curr_pwr_watts -= running_avg_capture; > -- Acked-by: Borislav Petkov Btw, Rui, you could consider unifying the code under a single if (boot_cpu_data.x86 == 0x15 && boot_cpu_data.x86_model >= 0x60) { ... else ... as with this patch you'll have two of those checks. Unified might be better readable but that is for another patch. Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.