[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 6/9] x86/intel_pstate: the main boby of the intel_pstate driver
On 26/05/2015 21:58, Jan Beulich wrote > >>> On 13.05.16 at 09:50, <wei.w.wang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > +static int byt_get_min_pstate(void) > > +{ > > + u64 value; > > + > > + rdmsrl(BYT_RATIOS, value); > > + return (value >> 8) & 0x7F; > > +} > > + > > +static int byt_get_max_pstate(void) > > +{ > > + u64 value; > > + > > + rdmsrl(BYT_RATIOS, value); > > + return (value >> 16) & 0x7F; > > +} > > + > > +static int byt_get_turbo_pstate(void) { > > + u64 value; > > + > > + rdmsrl(BYT_TURBO_RATIOS, value); > > + return value & 0x7F; > > +} > > + > > +static void byt_set_pstate(struct cpudata *cpudata, int pstate) { > > + u64 val; > > + int32_t vid_fp; > > + u32 vid; > > + > > + val = pstate << 8; > > + if (limits.no_turbo && !limits.turbo_disabled) > > + val |= (u64)1 << 32; > > All of the literal numbers above (and there are more further down) would > better become self-documenting manifest constants. I just realized that it would be better to remove these bay trail platform related code. What do you think? Best, Wei _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |