On 27.01.2016 07:45, Huang Rui wrote:
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)
I'm going to send a formal patch.
Thank you.
Thanks,
Rui
--
Best regards,
Gi-Oh Kim
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
