On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 13:55:41 +0200
Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Expose the CPPC guaranteed performance as reported by the platform through
> GuaranteedPerformanceRegister.
>
> The current value is already read in cppc_get_perf_caps() and stored in
> struct cppc_perf_caps (to be used by the intel_pstate driver), so only the
> attribute itself needs to be defined.
Are there any objections to exposing this CPPC register through sysfs?
I mean, if everybody is OK with it, the patch could be acked and queued
for 6.11, right?
Petr T
> Signed-off-by: Petr Tesařík <ptesarik@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
> index 1d857978f5f4..9976bb57356e 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
> @@ -160,6 +160,7 @@ show_cppc_data(cppc_get_perf_caps, cppc_perf_caps, highest_perf);
> show_cppc_data(cppc_get_perf_caps, cppc_perf_caps, lowest_perf);
> show_cppc_data(cppc_get_perf_caps, cppc_perf_caps, nominal_perf);
> show_cppc_data(cppc_get_perf_caps, cppc_perf_caps, lowest_nonlinear_perf);
> +show_cppc_data(cppc_get_perf_caps, cppc_perf_caps, guaranteed_perf);
> show_cppc_data(cppc_get_perf_caps, cppc_perf_caps, lowest_freq);
> show_cppc_data(cppc_get_perf_caps, cppc_perf_caps, nominal_freq);
>
> @@ -196,6 +197,7 @@ static struct attribute *cppc_attrs[] = {
> &highest_perf.attr,
> &lowest_perf.attr,
> &lowest_nonlinear_perf.attr,
> + &guaranteed_perf.attr,
> &nominal_perf.attr,
> &nominal_freq.attr,
> &lowest_freq.attr,
