On Sun, Apr 14, 2024 at 06:19:46PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 08:24:40AM +0000, Zhang, Rui wrote:
> > On Fri, 2024-04-05 at 18:04 -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > > The Intel Software Development manual defines states the temperature
> >
> > I failed to parse this, is the above "states" redundant?
>
> Sorry Rui! I missed this repy.
>
> Ah, the commit message is wrong. I will do s/defines//
>
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > digital readout as the bits [22:16] of the
> > > IA32_[PACKAGE]_THERM_STATUS
> > > registers. In recent processor, however, the range is [23:16]. Use a
> > > model-specific bitmask to extract the temperature readout correctly.
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c b/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
> > > index 616bd1a5b864..5632e1b1dfb1 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
> > > @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
> > > #include <linux/sysfs.h>
> > > #include <linux/hwmon-sysfs.h>
> > > #include <linux/err.h>
> > > +#include <linux/intel_tcc.h>
> > > #include <linux/mutex.h>
> > > #include <linux/list.h>
> > > #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > > @@ -404,6 +405,8 @@ static ssize_t show_temp(struct device *dev,
> > > tjmax = get_tjmax(tdata, dev);
> > > /* Check whether the time interval has elapsed */
> > > if (time_after(jiffies, tdata->last_updated + HZ)) {
> > > + u32 mask =
> > > intel_tcc_get_temp_mask(is_pkg_temp_data(tdata));
> > > +
> > > rdmsr_on_cpu(tdata->cpu, tdata->status_reg, &eax,
> > > &edx);
> > > /*
> > > * Ignore the valid bit. In all observed cases the
> > > register
> > > @@ -411,7 +414,7 @@ static ssize_t show_temp(struct device *dev,
> > > * Return it instead of reporting an error which
> > > doesn't
> > > * really help at all.
> > > */
> > > - tdata->temp = tjmax - ((eax >> 16) & 0x7f) * 1000;
> > > + tdata->temp = tjmax - ((eax >> 16) & mask) * 1000;
> > > tdata->last_updated = jiffies;
> > > }
> > >
> > Besides this one, we can also convert to use intel_tcc_get_tjmax() in
> > get_tjmax().
>
> I thought about this, but realized that the bitmask of TjMax is always
> [23:16]; no need for a model check. If anything, intel_tcc_get_tjmax()
> would remove some duplicated code. But coretemp.c would need to depend
> on INTEL_TCC, which seems to be a non-starter.
>
Calling intel_tcc_get_temp_mask() in practice already introduces that
dependency because it returns a fixed mask if INTEL_TCC is not enabled.
If that doesn't matter, the dynamic mask is unnecessary to start with.
Guenter
