On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 04:13:53PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx>
>
> If the boost ratio isn't calculated properly for the system for any
> reason this can cause other problems that are non-obvious.
>
> Raise all messages to warn instead.
>
> Suggested-by: Perry Yuan <Perry.Yuan@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c
> index 1d631ac5ec328..e94507110ca24 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c
> @@ -75,17 +75,17 @@ static void amd_set_max_freq_ratio(void)
>
> rc = cppc_get_perf_caps(0, &perf_caps);
> if (rc) {
> - pr_debug("Could not retrieve perf counters (%d)\n", rc);
> + pr_warn("Could not retrieve perf counters (%d)\n", rc);
> return;
> }
>
> rc = amd_get_boost_ratio_numerator(0, &highest_perf);
> if (rc)
> - pr_debug("Could not retrieve highest performance\n");
> + pr_warn("Could not retrieve highest performance\n");
> nominal_perf = perf_caps.nominal_perf;
>
> if (!nominal_perf) {
> - pr_debug("Could not retrieve nominal performance\n");
> + pr_warn("Could not retrieve nominal performance\n");
> return;
> }
>
> @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ static void amd_set_max_freq_ratio(void)
> /* midpoint between max_boost and max_P */
> perf_ratio = (perf_ratio + SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) >> 1;
> if (!perf_ratio) {
> - pr_debug("Non-zero highest/nominal perf values led to a 0 ratio\n");
> + pr_warn("Non-zero highest/nominal perf values led to a 0 ratio\n");
> return;
Aside:
perf_ratio is a u64, and SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE is (1L << 10). Thus, is
it even possible to have !perf_ratio?
Otherwise, I am ok with this promotion of pr_debug to pr_warn.
Reviewed-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <gautham.shenoy@xxxxxxx>
--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
