Re: [PATCH] hwmon, fam15h_power: Add support for two more processors

[Aravind Gopalakrishnan <aravind.gopalakrishnan@amd.com>]

On 9/10/2014 12:53 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:02:08PM -0500, Aravind Gopalakrishnan wrote:
>> Fam16h,M30h(Mullins) and Fam15hM30h(Kaveri) processors can
>> report 'power_crit' value. So, adding their respective device ids.
>>
>> Also, according to BKDGs, the 'TdpRunAvgAccCap' that show_power()
>> uses is valid only on Fam15h, Models 0x0-0xF. On all other processors
>> the field is 'Reserved'. So, return error if we are on any other family/model.
>>
>> Impact on lm-sensors is minimal. On such families, instead of reporting
>> Current power value as '0', we now have:
>> power1:           N/A
>>
> It will result in people complaining to us about it.
>
> It would be more appropriate to not create the attribute the first place
> if it is not supported. Sure, that is a bit more code, but it isn't that bad.
> You can simply return -ENODEV for unsupported CPUs from the probe function.
>
>
>> Signed-off-by: Aravind Gopalakrishnan <aravind.gopalakrishnan@amd.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c | 6 ++++++
>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c b/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c
>> index 4a7cbfa..b69bf7d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c
>> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c
>> @@ -57,6 +57,10 @@ static ssize_t show_power(struct device *dev,
>>   	struct fam15h_power_data *data = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>   	struct pci_dev *f4 = data->pdev;
>>   
>> +	/* The value TdpRunAvgAccCap is valid only on F15h, Models 0x0-0xF */
>> +	if (boot_cpu_data.x86 != 0x15 || boot_cpu_data.x86_model > 0x0)
> The comment does not match the code. The comment talks about accepting models
> F15h, models 0x0-0xF, but the code rejects anything but F15h model 0x0.

Ah. Yes, The condition should have been (..boot_cpu_data.x86_model > 0xf)

> Now it may well be that the above describes identifies all F15h and F16h CPUs,
> but this is not clear from the comment. It rather looks as if anything but F15h,
> model 0x0 is rejected, including all F16h CPUs. But then why accept F16h CPUs
> in the first place ?

Yes, we want to reject anything but F15h, Models 00h-0fh.
The reason I included the newer processor IDs, (and let 
PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_16H_NB_F4) remain
is because we can still obtain 'critical power value'. It is only the 
'current power' that is not exposed.

If we return -ENODEV in the probe function (or we can just remove the 
listed PCI_DEVICE_ID), then we'd not get the critical power values too.

- Aravind.

>> +		return -ENOSYS;
>> +
>>   	pci_bus_read_config_dword(f4->bus, PCI_DEVFN(PCI_SLOT(f4->devfn), 5),
>>   				  REG_TDP_RUNNING_AVERAGE, &val);
>>   	running_avg_capture = (val >> 4) & 0x3fffff;
>> @@ -216,7 +220,9 @@ static int fam15h_power_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
>>   
>>   static const struct pci_device_id fam15h_power_id_table[] = {
>>   	{ PCI_VDEVICE(AMD, PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_15H_NB_F4) },
>> +	{ PCI_VDEVICE(AMD, PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_15H_M30H_NB_F4) },
>>   	{ PCI_VDEVICE(AMD, PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_16H_NB_F4) },
>> +	{ PCI_VDEVICE(AMD, PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_16H_M30H_NB_F3) },
>>   	{}
>>   };
>>   MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(pci, fam15h_power_id_table);
>> -- 
>> 2.0.3
>>