Re: [PATCH 0/5] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Reuse and refactor code

[Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>]

On 12/4/2024 22:29, Dhananjay Ugwekar wrote:
> Hello Mario,
> 
> On 12/4/2024 10:37 PM, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>> On 12/4/2024 08:48, Dhananjay Ugwekar wrote:
>>> Use static calls to avoid frequent MSR/shared memory system checks.
>>>
>>> Reuse existing functions amd_pstate_update_perf() and
>>> amd_pstate_set_epp() instead of duplicating code.
>>>
>>> Remove an unnecessary check for active mode in online and offline
>>> functions.
>>>
>>> Eliminate a redundant function amd_pstate_epp_offline().
>>>
>>> Dhananjay Ugwekar (5):
>>>     cpufreq/amd-pstate: Convert the amd_pstate_get/set_epp() to static
>>>       calls
>>>     cpufreq/amd-pstate: Move the invocation of amd_pstate_update_perf()
>>>     cpufreq/amd-pstate: Refactor amd_pstate_epp_reenable() and
>>>       amd_pstate_epp_offline()
>>>     cpufreq/amd-pstate: Remove the cppc_state check in offline/online
>>>       functions
>>>     cpufreq/amd-pstate: Merge amd_pstate_epp_cpu_offline() and
>>>       amd_pstate_epp_offline()
>>>
>>>    drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c | 151 +++++++++++++++++------------------
>>>    1 file changed, 73 insertions(+), 78 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>> For the patches not already reviewed:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>>
>> I'll add this to superm1/bleeding-edge.
> 
> There is a small warning in the 3rd patch, how do you suggest we fix that,
> should I post a new version or you'll modify the patch at your end?
> 
>     drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c: In function 'amd_pstate_epp_offline':
>>> drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c:1664:13: warning: variable 'value' set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable]
>      1664 |         u64 value;
>           |             ^~~~~
> 
> Regards,
> Dhananjay
> 

Don't worry, it's a one line change.  I'll take care of it when I 
migrate it to superm1/linux-next.