[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/cpufreq: Clean up powernow registration
On 12.11.2021 19:28, Andrew Cooper wrote: > --- a/xen/arch/x86/acpi/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/acpi/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -640,13 +640,19 @@ static int __init cpufreq_driver_init(void) > { > int ret = 0; > > - if ((cpufreq_controller == FREQCTL_xen) && > - (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL)) > - ret = cpufreq_register_driver(&acpi_cpufreq_driver); > - else if ((cpufreq_controller == FREQCTL_xen) && > - (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor & > - (X86_VENDOR_AMD | X86_VENDOR_HYGON))) > - ret = powernow_register_driver(); > + if ( cpufreq_controller == FREQCTL_xen ) > + { > + switch ( boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor ) > + { > + case X86_VENDOR_INTEL: > + ret = cpufreq_register_driver(&acpi_cpufreq_driver); > + break; I've been wondering why we continue to tie this to Intel. I don't think there's much Intel specific in the ACPI driver, so I wonder whether this shouldn't use "default:" instead. But I can agree that's likely better to be done in a separate change. > @@ -353,25 +349,13 @@ static const struct cpufreq_driver __initconstrel > powernow_cpufreq_driver = { > .update = powernow_cpufreq_update > }; > > -unsigned int __init powernow_register_driver() > +unsigned int __init powernow_register_driver(void) > { > - unsigned int i, ret = 0; > + if ( !(boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor & (X86_VENDOR_AMD | X86_VENDOR_HYGON)) ) > + return -ENODEV; Ideally with this dropped (and of course with the issue pointed out by Roger taken care of) Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> Jan
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |