Re: [PATCH v5 10/11] cpufreq: CPPC: make scaling_min/max_freq read-only when auto_sel enabled

[Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com>]

On 26/12/25 08:56, zhenglifeng (A) wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> On 2025/12/23 20:13, Sumit Gupta wrote:
>> When autonomous selection (auto_sel) is enabled, the hardware controls
>> performance within min_perf/max_perf register bounds making the
>> scaling_min/max_freq effectively read-only.
>>
>> Enforce this by setting policy limits to min/max_perf bounds in
>> cppc_verify_policy(). Users must use min_perf/max_perf sysfs interfaces
>> to change performance limits in autonomous mode.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
>> index b1f570d6de34..b3da263c18b0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
>> @@ -305,7 +305,37 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>>
>>   static int cppc_verify_policy(struct cpufreq_policy_data *policy)
>>   {
>> -     cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits(policy);
>> +     unsigned int min_freq = policy->cpuinfo.min_freq;
>> +     unsigned int max_freq = policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
>> +     struct cpufreq_policy *cpu_policy;
>> +     struct cppc_cpudata *cpu_data;
>> +     struct cppc_perf_caps *caps;
>> +
>> +     cpu_policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(policy->cpu);
> Better to use:
>
>          struct cpufreq_policy *cpu_policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) = cpufreq_cpu_get(policy->cpu);

Will use this in v6.


>> +     if (!cpu_policy)
>> +             return -ENODEV;
>> +
>> +     cpu_data = cpu_policy->driver_data;
>> +     caps = &cpu_data->perf_caps;
> cpu_policy, cpu_data and cpas are only used in the if branch. Just put them
> in it.

Can move caps inside the if branch.
cpu_policy and cpu_data can't be moved inside because we need
perf_ctrls.auto_sel to evaluate the condition itself.

>> +
>> +     if (cpu_data->perf_ctrls.auto_sel) {
>> +             u32 min_perf, max_perf;
>> +
>> +             /*
>> +              * Set policy limits to HW min/max_perf bounds. In autonomous
>> +              * mode, scaling_min/max_freq is effectively read-only.
>> +              */
>> +             min_perf = cpu_data->perf_ctrls.min_perf ?:
>> +                        caps->lowest_nonlinear_perf;
>> +             max_perf = cpu_data->perf_ctrls.max_perf ?: caps->nominal_perf;
>> +
>> +             policy->min = cppc_perf_to_khz(caps, min_perf);
>> +             policy->max = cppc_perf_to_khz(caps, max_perf);
>> +     } else {
>> +             cpufreq_verify_within_limits(policy, min_freq, max_freq);
> Why not still using cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits()?

Will change to use it in v6.

Thank you,
Sumit Gupta

>> +     }
>> +
>> +     cpufreq_cpu_put(cpu_policy);
>>        return 0;
>>   }
>>