[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [PATCH v5 08/18] xen/cpu: Expand core frequency calculation for AMD Family 1Ah CPUs
- To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: "Penny, Zheng" <penny.zheng@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 08:37:35 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=amd.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=amd.com; dkim=pass header.d=amd.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector10001; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=Nf0QYkR/TafdU4WgMuO/fHhhOQMqY8vnUfXysXD//aA=; b=E0RClnAhr3Kr/Ag7s0/TZdHwNyPuDeN42shopX7W+XkE5Yz3T5MEmkAPjZ/5p4KMT6A6ZNBwgJD0b9gZ5OUqzjHESu80RBDCg7d7X9bA94gGsDhnPFRWaDIkg6f10ZnrgnTTedx78VxtFirvAILj9QRsJa1Ka511mwqUH1WUT/E+KZNMsM3n3p3FCyn8lWdNZVKpna/4/ZCq/jC2MAAqAWOgIP2t4mEme5RPwOsdwJLp1p7IG5TRWsUJOdlb5HJ9Wj48XI/3hJOGnE7BH/bymcdM/s+qmDUgrVNgdBU0/NlGKvBMaIHXxMYw/yN3/QRQHj50/jG5JdsgrEPypjP1Ow==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector10001; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=SarLjttMj6JAjjK0puUDWaLUVfnojJGf84P34T4ivxEi9FCpYpymT27rdz2D0mLEhAvXNqbkvkuqNXoGM2I5tQQ4SbgXs3iY0jApcg/xFoeIPqEoWd28fIPBhJBi+ewJqDj20zhrStouBgT5mcMVsKj34A5AnuHEjixwEnDmZR1JLC1YyfOYaKwHyiX9mjiQ/IUA/4yIQJHRBsxzJ7LzzuMTbS30IicPLITWBzmB33Euu2Zq47VRHveLSO/NjrBT7fZDipUiAqGqubl5J82aUoS/kFU0bPZRb7EAk4UUM4yt+TBqaO+oNW8pMGzWFw+/1XS7lgJC7kcVB81YJdpDgA==
- Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=amd.com;
- Cc: "Huang, Ray" <Ray.Huang@xxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 08:37:44 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
- Msip_labels: MSIP_Label_f265efc6-e181-49d6-80f4-fae95cf838a0_Enabled=True;MSIP_Label_f265efc6-e181-49d6-80f4-fae95cf838a0_SiteId=3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d;MSIP_Label_f265efc6-e181-49d6-80f4-fae95cf838a0_SetDate=2025-06-17T08:37:25.0000000Z;MSIP_Label_f265efc6-e181-49d6-80f4-fae95cf838a0_Name=Open Source;MSIP_Label_f265efc6-e181-49d6-80f4-fae95cf838a0_ContentBits=3;MSIP_Label_f265efc6-e181-49d6-80f4-fae95cf838a0_Method=Privileged
- Thread-index: AQHbzuRB4/qHZZI650u0dV+1tuD8lbP/mD+AgAeP7oA=
- Thread-topic: [PATCH v5 08/18] xen/cpu: Expand core frequency calculation for AMD Family 1Ah CPUs
[Public]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2025 9:08 PM
> To: Penny, Zheng <penny.zheng@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Huang, Ray <Ray.Huang@xxxxxxx>; Andrew Cooper
> <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>; Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>; xen-
> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/18] xen/cpu: Expand core frequency calculation for
> AMD Family 1Ah CPUs
>
> On 27.05.2025 10:48, Penny Zheng wrote:
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/amd.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/amd.c
> > @@ -583,12 +583,40 @@ static void amd_get_topology(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> > :
> > c->cpu_core_id); }
> >
> > +static unsigned int attr_const amd_parse_freq(unsigned int family,
> > + unsigned int value)
> > +{
> > + unsigned int freq = 0;
> > +
> > + switch (family) {
> > + case 0x10 ... 0x16:
> > + freq = (((value & 0x3f) + 0x10) * 100) >> ((value >> 6) & 7);
> > + break;
> > +
> > + case 0x17 ... 0x19:
> > + freq = ((value & 0xff) * 25 * 8) / ((value >> 8) & 0x3f);
> > + break;
> > +
> > + case 0x1A:
> > + freq = (value & 0xfff) * 5;
> > + break;
> > +
> > + default:
> > + printk(XENLOG_ERR
> > + "Unsupported cpu family 0x%x on cpufreq parsing",
> > + family);
>
> I think I requested before (elsewhere) to prefer %#x over 0x%x.
>
> However, why the log message? With ...
>
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return freq;
> > +}
> > +
> > void amd_log_freq(const struct cpuinfo_x86 *c) {
> > unsigned int idx = 0, h;
> > uint64_t hi, lo, val;
> >
> > - if (c->x86 < 0x10 || c->x86 > 0x19 ||
> > + if (c->x86 < 0x10 || c->x86 > 0x1A ||
>
> ... this condition, there simply could be ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() there? Happy
> to adjust while committing, so long as you agree. With the adjustment:
> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>
Agreed, thx
> Jan
|