Hi, Am Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 10:02:44PM +0530 schrieb K Prateek Nayak: > Hello Peter, > > On 9/26/2022 5:37 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > For how many of the above have you changed behaviour? > > The proposed logic does alter the behavior for x86 chipsets that depend > on acpi_idle driver and have IOPORT based C-state. Based on what > Rafael and Dave suggested, I have marked all Intel processors to be > affected by this bug. In light of Andreas' report, I've also marked > all the pre-family 17h AMD processors to be affected by this bug to avoid > causing any regression. > > It is hard to tell if any other vendor had this bug in their chipsets. > Dave's patch does not make this consideration either and limits the > dummy operation to only Intel chipsets using acpi_idle driver. > (https://lore.kernel.org/all/78d13a19-2806-c8af-573e-7f2625edfab8@xxxxxxxxx/) > If folks reported a regression, I would have been happy to fix it for > them. Despite certain, umm, controversies, the discussion/patch activities appear to be heading into a good direction ;) This text somehow prompted me to think of whether STPCLK# [quirk] behaviour is a property of the CPU family, or the chipset, or actually a combination of it. Given that [from recollection] VIA 8233/8235 spec PDFs do mention STPCLK#, possibly a chipset does have a say in it? (which obviously would then mean that the kernel's quirk state decision-making would have to be refined) Minor reference (note 8237, not 8233): http://www.chipset-ic.com/datasheet/VT8237.pdf "STPCLK# is asserted by the VT8237R to the CPU to throttle the processor." (and many other STPCLK# mentions there) Greetings Andreas Mohr
