On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:57:35AM +0100, Gi-Oh Kim wrote: > > > On 26.01.2016 03:25, Huang Rui wrote: > >On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 07:41:07PM +0800, Gioh Kim wrote: > Thanks for your reply. > I'm not completely sure that the reserved bits are always zero. > Are they always zero? > Or do we need bit-masking like following? > Reserved bits aren't always zero. But here they are reserved for ApmTdpLimit expansion. Yes, we would better add bit-masking here. :-) > -------------- 8< ----------------- > Subject: [PATCH] hwmon: (fam15h_power) Add bit masking for tdp_limit > > Add bit masking to read ApmTdpLimit precisely > > Signed-off-by: Gioh Kim <gi-oh.kim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c | 6 +++++- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c b/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c > index f77eb97..edbcf6c 100644 > --- a/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c > @@ -90,7 +90,11 @@ static ssize_t show_power(struct device *dev, > pci_bus_read_config_dword(f4->bus, PCI_DEVFN(PCI_SLOT(f4->devfn), 5), > REG_TDP_LIMIT3, &val); > > - tdp_limit = val >> 16; > + if (boot_cpu_data.x86_model >= 0x60) > + tdp_limit = val >> 16; You need add CPU family check and a comment to mention bit field change. This updates since family 15h and model 60h. if (boot_cpu_data.x86 == 0x15 && boot_cpu_data.x86_model >= 0x60) Thanks, Rui _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
