On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 7:43 AM Wyes Karny wyes.karny@amd.com wrote:
Hi Rafael,
Thanks for reviewing the patch.
On 09 May 20:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: ------------------------------------------>8--------------------------------------
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c index 2548ec92faa2..007893514c87 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c @@ -2698,8 +2698,6 @@ static int __intel_pstate_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
intel_pstate_init_acpi_perf_limits(policy);
policy->fast_switch_possible = true;return 0;}
@@ -2955,6 +2953,7 @@ static int intel_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) if (ret) return ret;
policy->fast_switch_possible = true;I'm not sure what this is about. Is it a cleanup of intel_pstate?
This patch intends to remove fast_switch_possible flag dependency from drivers which only use adjust_perf as frequency/pref update callback. As intel_pstate and amd_pstate driver has only adjust_perf and not fast_switch, therefore I'm removing that flag from these drivers. But intel_cpufreq has fast_switch therefore, only adding that flag for intel_cpufreq driver.
But is it really better to change it? It works correctly as-is AFAICS.
In any case, the intel_pstate change should be a separate patch, because it is not directly related to the other changes in the $subject one IMV.