Re: [PATCH v7 08/15] xenpm: Change get-cpufreq-para output for hwp

[Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 01:09:38PM -0400, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> diff --git a/tools/misc/xenpm.c b/tools/misc/xenpm.c
> index 1c474c3b59..21c93386de 100644
> --- a/tools/misc/xenpm.c
> +++ b/tools/misc/xenpm.c
> @@ -711,6 +711,7 @@ void start_gather_func(int argc, char *argv[])
>  /* print out parameters about cpu frequency */
>  static void print_cpufreq_para(int cpuid, struct xc_get_cpufreq_para 
> *p_cpufreq)
>  {
> +    bool hwp = strcmp(p_cpufreq->scaling_driver, XEN_HWP_DRIVER_NAME) == 0;
>      int i;
>  
>      printf("cpu id               : %d\n", cpuid);
> @@ -720,49 +721,57 @@ static void print_cpufreq_para(int cpuid, struct 
> xc_get_cpufreq_para *p_cpufreq)
>      printf("scaling_driver       : %s\n", p_cpufreq->scaling_driver);
>  
> +    if ( !hwp )

This test kind of feels wrong. Should we test instead the thing we want
to print? Maybe declaring another bool, something like "bool
scaling_governor = !hwp" just below the declaration of "bool hwp"?
Otherwise, if there's another technology that comes along that isn't
"hwp" and not something that can be printed with this, there's going to
be some kind of hidden bug (even if probably easy to spot during
development).

>      {
> +        printf("scaling_avail_gov    : %s\n",
> +               p_cpufreq->scaling_available_governors);


Thanks,

-- 
Anthony PERARD