> >> +#define RAS2_PCC_CMD_COMPLETE BIT(0) > >> +#define RAS2_PCC_CMD_ERROR BIT(2) > >> + > >I think these bits are from table 14.11 and > >generic to all PCC status registers? Should these > >have more generic names rather than ras2 specific ones? > Yes. > Instead will use PCC_STATUS_CMD_ COMPLETE and PCC_STATUS_ ERROR > from include/acpi/pcc.h. > > > > >> +/* RAS2 specific PCC commands */ > >> +#define RAS2_PCC_CMD_EXEC 0x01 > >Are we mixing commands and field definitions both > >with prefix RAS2_PCC_CMD_ ? That is somewhat > >confusing. > Will add Table 5.82: .. here in the comment and > Is rename to PCC_CMD_ EXEC_RAS2 better? That seems OK to me. For things you agree with feel free to just crop out that bit of the email so it is easier to spot the remaining questions. Thanks, Jonathan
