From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A01C62F2D for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 13:28:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709040504; cv=none; b=p2qMGG8nG4eo3eK9sugpzRHPklmkic6ieKetB3J+SvCI71EPuoBFPYBp5DCVodnyOXn+seK395ivz4Y+1uA18bowR9EPEZwegtpWi9B2Wca/gVyo/ajhNYD2Qv/kYCQ+h5C8LqsHg7GFAcSOXIovLBaDibr1zcpInvsgT31OsQA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709040504; c=relaxed/simple; bh=wJHfsM1P2z2QSojnja8D+tpbSXOYGtQgaHRSfYLDNig=; h=From:Date:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=I7DstRf7ZBV8AZrvYt/FqB4I58N9TUgPo6ljYA84XQKXS9pI/AqC/ZYIREBfFi85Vt31FZemShaEcbePWfkdbQgRt+R8sFC9LahDKREQLdwhZP4m4uafKuuVcATFGv6407JQof34lKdgscI8oiHonFShnwffX3sIX7sp7wj76ZQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=M2v+zp4R; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="M2v+zp4R" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1709040503; x=1740576503; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id: references:mime-version; bh=wJHfsM1P2z2QSojnja8D+tpbSXOYGtQgaHRSfYLDNig=; b=M2v+zp4R1GnPWY3PgQSHJ/ccWVvbXy7LvUTRzQUjXDxbzCYVu2Oldzjy XvOHTA5NWeUTJnPaVCCSqZUABUKuumXAOg35yEI57DxoKwYrIhMIB98fO vdqDK8Rp96AhNkvN2V7Ofxy3t3VDONYYnrVXUWs4LVh4uGV26OGQsTtDA hMT/2pE/0hKFV3K4yzPMYlDKcZKTaYcL01eVd837vbs3Q3xNRWCuHeBuf kwN8Ct1aUdgo3BgkkiCDnyrMdnYv8YQ6TqUXrcXaPgbnHWFzdNMWROGHx pkDCjewvUcyL3ueg19bknvz71Y1cHG+Dpmw15OizTya7JTfx+sy2c4QGj g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10996"; a="14017195" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.06,187,1705392000"; d="scan'208";a="14017195" Received: from fmviesa008.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.148]) by fmvoesa105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Feb 2024 05:28:21 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.06,187,1705392000"; d="scan'208";a="7188623" Received: from ijarvine-desk1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.246.34.61]) by fmviesa008-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Feb 2024 05:28:19 -0800 From: =?UTF-8?q?Ilpo=20J=C3=A4rvinen?= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 15:28:15 +0200 (EET) To: Shyam Sundar S K cc: Hans de Goede , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, Patil.Reddy@amd.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] platform/x86/amd/pmf: Add support to get sbios requests in PMF driver In-Reply-To: <20240227125520.3153140-4-Shyam-sundar.S-k@amd.com> Message-ID: <1358d40e-5114-2d1d-c679-342cf3ca0989@linux.intel.com> References: <20240227125520.3153140-1-Shyam-sundar.S-k@amd.com> <20240227125520.3153140-4-Shyam-sundar.S-k@amd.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Shyam Sundar S K wrote: > Update the APMF function index 2 for family 1Ah, that gets the > information of SBIOS requests (like the pending requests from BIOS, extra space. > custom notifications, updation of power limits etc). > > Co-developed-by: Patil Rajesh Reddy > Signed-off-by: Patil Rajesh Reddy > Signed-off-by: Shyam Sundar S K > --- > drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/acpi.c | 6 ++++++ > drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/pmf.h | 13 +++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/acpi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/acpi.c > index 1f287a147c57..1b2a099c0cef 100644 > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/acpi.c > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/acpi.c > @@ -166,6 +166,12 @@ int apmf_get_auto_mode_def(struct amd_pmf_dev *pdev, struct apmf_auto_mode *data > return apmf_if_call_store_buffer(pdev, APMF_FUNC_AUTO_MODE, data, sizeof(*data)); > } > > +int apmf_get_sbios_requests_v2(struct amd_pmf_dev *pdev, struct apmf_sbios_req_v2 *req) > +{ > + return apmf_if_call_store_buffer(pdev, APMF_FUNC_SBIOS_REQUESTS, > + req, sizeof(*req)); Fix the alignment please. > +} > + > int apmf_get_sbios_requests(struct amd_pmf_dev *pdev, struct apmf_sbios_req *req) > { > return apmf_if_call_store_buffer(pdev, APMF_FUNC_SBIOS_REQUESTS, > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/pmf.h b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/pmf.h > index 4364af72a7a3..f11d2a348696 100644 > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/pmf.h > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/pmf.h > @@ -116,6 +116,18 @@ struct apmf_sbios_req { > u8 skin_temp_hs2; > } __packed; > > +struct apmf_sbios_req_v2 { > + u16 size; > + u32 pending_req; > + u8 rsvd; > + u32 update_ppt_pmf; > + u32 update_ppt_pmf_apu_only; > + u32 update_stt_min; > + u8 update_stt_apu; > + u8 update_stt_hs2; Is it intentional that these do not match with the names in struct apmf_sbios_req? I mean some of the fields look suspiciously close in name so is the purpose still the same and somebody just invented new names for the same field? -- i.