[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 03/11] x86/intel_pstate: add new policy fields and a new driver interface
>>> On 11.06.15 at 10:26, <wei.w.wang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > --- a/xen/drivers/cpufreq/utility.c > +++ b/xen/drivers/cpufreq/utility.c > @@ -457,6 +457,12 @@ int __cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *data, > data->min = policy->min; > data->max = policy->max; > > + if (cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) { > + data->limits.min_perf_pct = policy->limits.min_perf_pct; > + data->limits.max_perf_pct = policy->limits.max_perf_pct; For one you leave all other data->limits fields uninitialized - please use "data->limits = policy->limits". And then I don't see why this should be done inside the if() - there's no obvious connection between ->setpolicy being non-NULL and ->limits having meaning to the driver - this is solely your intended _use_ model. > --- a/xen/include/acpi/cpufreq/cpufreq.h > +++ b/xen/include/acpi/cpufreq/cpufreq.h > @@ -41,6 +41,18 @@ struct cpufreq_cpuinfo { > unsigned int transition_latency; /* in 10^(-9) s = nanoseconds */ > }; > > +struct perf_limits { > + int no_turbo; > + int turbo_disabled; Both bool_t I suppose. > @@ -52,6 +64,8 @@ struct cpufreq_policy { > unsigned int max; /* in kHz */ > unsigned int cur; /* in kHz, only needed if cpufreq > * governors are used */ > + unsigned int policy; This field isn't being used anywhere here. Please add it upon first use. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |