Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH v2 06/12] cpufreq: make cpufreq driver more generalizable

[Oleksandr Dmytryshyn <oleksandr.dmytryshyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 22.10.14 at 10:39, <oleksandr.dmytryshyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On 16.10.14 at 13:27, <oleksandr.dmytryshyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> --- a/xen/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>>> +++ b/xen/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>>> @@ -43,9 +43,14 @@
>>>>  #include <asm/io.h>
>>>>  #include <asm/processor.h>
>>>>  #include <asm/percpu.h>
>>>> -#include <acpi/acpi.h>
>>>>  #include <xen/cpufreq.h>
>>>
>>> I can see this being moved into a #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI section, but
>>> removing it altogether seems kind of wrong.
>>>
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>>>> +    #define XEN_PX_FULL_INIT (XEN_PX_PCT | XEN_PX_PSS | XEN_PX_PSD |
>> XEN_PX_PPC)
>>>> +#else
>>>> +    #define XEN_PX_FULL_INIT (XEN_PX_PSS | XEN_PX_PSD | XEN_PX_PPC)
>>>> +#endif
>>>
>>> I'm not really understanding what is ACPI-specific about PCT but not
>>> any of the other three. Please give some explanation in the commit
>>> description.
>> XEN_PX_PPC - 'platform_limit' setting is included to the
>> processor_performance
>> structure which can be used in ARM meaning
>>
>> XEN_PX_PCT - 'control_register' and 'status_register' settings (MSR and MCR
>> registers) are included to the processor_performance structure - this is
>> ACPI-specific settings because MSR and MCR registers are ACPI-specific
>>
>> XEN_PX_PSS - information about P-states is included to the
>> processor_performance
>> structure which can be used in ARM meaning (frequency in each state,
>> state_count etc.)

It was a typo. It should be XEN_PX_PSD in last paragraph
>> XEN_PX_PPC - inforamtion about pomer domain info and shared_type is included
>> to the processor_performance structure which can be used in ARM meaning
>> (shared_type and power domain number)
>
> Not sure why you listed XEN_PX_PPC twice, but ignored PSD (I guess
> one of the two was just a typo). In any event I suggest no
> overloading ACPI things with ARM non-ACPI ones (re-using interface
> structures may be okay if they're truly not ACPI specific, but ACPI
> naming shouldn't be applied to non-ACPI items).
>
> Jan
>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel