On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:12:56PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:02:09PM +0100, Gioh Kim wrote:
> > Add bit masking to read ApmTdpLimit precisely
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gioh Kim <gi-oh.kim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c | 10 +++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c b/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c
> > index f77eb97..4f695d8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c
> > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c
> > @@ -90,7 +90,15 @@ 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;
> > + /*
> > + * On Carrizo and later platforms, ApmTdpLimit bit field
> > + * is extended to 16:31 from 16:28.
> > + */
> > + if (boot_cpu_data.x86 == 0x15 && boot_cpu_data.x86_model >= 0x60)
> > + tdp_limit = val >> 16;
> > + else
> > + tdp_limit = (val >> 16) & 0x1fff;
> > +
> > curr_pwr_watts = ((u64)(tdp_limit +
> > data->base_tdp)) << running_avg_range;
> > curr_pwr_watts -= running_avg_capture;
> > --
>
> Acked-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx>
>
> Btw, Rui, you could consider unifying the code under a single
>
> if (boot_cpu_data.x86 == 0x15 && boot_cpu_data.x86_model >= 0x60) {
> ...
>
> else
> ...
>
> as with this patch you'll have two of those checks. Unified might be
> better readable but that is for another patch.
>
Make sence, I will do that. :-)
Thanks,
Rui
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
