On 24 Aug 10:12, Meng Li wrote: > ACPI 6.5 section 8.4.6.1.1.1 specifies that Notify event 0x85 can be > emmitted to cause the the OSPM to re-evaluate the highest performance > register. Add support for this event. > > Signed-off-by: Meng Li <li.meng@xxxxxxx> > Link: https://uefi.org/specs/ACPI/6.5/08_Processor_Configuration_and_Control.html?highlight=cppc#cpc-continuous-performance-control > --- > drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 6 ++++++ > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > include/linux/cpufreq.h | 4 ++++ > 3 files changed, 23 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > index 4bd16b3f0781..29b2fb68a35d 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ > #define ACPI_PROCESSOR_NOTIFY_PERFORMANCE 0x80 > #define ACPI_PROCESSOR_NOTIFY_POWER 0x81 > #define ACPI_PROCESSOR_NOTIFY_THROTTLING 0x82 > +#define ACPI_PROCESSOR_NOTIFY_HIGEST_PERF_CHANGED 0x85 > > MODULE_AUTHOR("Paul Diefenbaugh"); > MODULE_DESCRIPTION("ACPI Processor Driver"); > @@ -83,6 +84,11 @@ static void acpi_processor_notify(acpi_handle handle, u32 event, void *data) > acpi_bus_generate_netlink_event(device->pnp.device_class, > dev_name(&device->dev), event, 0); > break; > + case ACPI_PROCESSOR_NOTIFY_HIGEST_PERF_CHANGED: > + cpufreq_update_highest_perf(pr->id); > + acpi_bus_generate_netlink_event(device->pnp.device_class, > + dev_name(&device->dev), event, 0); > + break; > default: > acpi_handle_debug(handle, "Unsupported event [0x%x]\n", event); > break; > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index 50bbc969ffe5..842357abfae6 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -2675,6 +2675,19 @@ void cpufreq_update_limits(unsigned int cpu) > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_update_limits); > > +/** > + * cpufreq_update_highest_perf - Update highest performance for a given CPU. > + * @cpu: CPU to update the highest performance for. > + * > + * Invoke the driver's ->update_highest_perf callback if present > + */ > +void cpufreq_update_highest_perf(unsigned int cpu) > +{ > + if (cpufreq_driver->update_highest_perf) > + cpufreq_driver->update_highest_perf(cpu); > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_update_highest_perf); > + > /********************************************************************* > * BOOST * > *********************************************************************/ > diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h > index 9bf94ae08158..58106b3d9183 100644 > --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h > +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h > @@ -232,6 +232,7 @@ int cpufreq_get_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int cpu); > void refresh_frequency_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy); > void cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu); > void cpufreq_update_limits(unsigned int cpu); > +void cpufreq_update_highest_perf(unsigned int cpu); > bool have_governor_per_policy(void); > bool cpufreq_supports_freq_invariance(void); > struct kobject *get_governor_parent_kobj(struct cpufreq_policy *policy); > @@ -377,6 +378,9 @@ struct cpufreq_driver { > /* Called to update policy limits on firmware notifications. */ > void (*update_limits)(unsigned int cpu); > > + /* Called to update highest performance on firmware notifications. */ > + void (*update_highest_perf)(unsigned int cpu); > + Can we use the existing `update_limits` callback? Thanks, Wyes > /* optional */ > int (*bios_limit)(int cpu, unsigned int *limit); > > -- > 2.34.1 >
