Re: [XEN PATCH v1] x86/cpufreq: separate powernow/hwp cpufreq code

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 06.06.2024 09:30, Sergiy Kibrik wrote:
> 06.06.24 10:08, Jan Beulich:
>> On 04.06.2024 11:34, Sergiy Kibrik wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/acpi/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/acpi/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>> @@ -657,7 +657,7 @@ static int __init cf_check cpufreq_driver_init(void)
>>>   
>>>           case X86_VENDOR_AMD:
>>>           case X86_VENDOR_HYGON:
>>> -            ret = powernow_register_driver();
>>> +            ret = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_AMD) ? powernow_register_driver() : 
>>> -ENODEV;
>>>               break;
>>>           }
>>
>> What about the Intel-specific code immediately up from here?
>> Dealing with that as well may likely permit to reduce ...
> 
> you mean to guard a call to hwp_register_driver() the same way as for 
> powernow_register_driver(), and save one stub? ?

Yes, and perhaps more. Maybe more stubs can be avoided? And
acpi_cpufreq_driver doesn't need registering either, and hence
would presumably be left unreferenced when !INTEL?

Jan