On 5/23/2023 1:56 PM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Tue, 16 May 2023, Shyam Sundar S K wrote: > >> Add a helper routine to check the underlying cpu id, that can be used >> across the PMC driver to remove the duplicate code. >> >> Co-developed-by: Sanket Goswami <Sanket.Goswami@xxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Sanket Goswami <Sanket.Goswami@xxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Shyam Sundar S K <Shyam-sundar.S-k@xxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmc.c | 17 ++++++++++++++--- >> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmc.c b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmc.c >> index e2439fda5c02..7e5e6afb3410 100644 >> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmc.c >> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmc.c >> @@ -564,6 +564,18 @@ static void amd_pmc_dbgfs_unregister(struct amd_pmc_dev *dev) >> debugfs_remove_recursive(dev->dbgfs_dir); >> } >> >> +static bool amd_pmc_check_sup_cpuid(struct amd_pmc_dev *dev) > > Does sup refer to "supported" or some other acronym? If the latter, Yes, please read that as "supported" > you should mention/open it in the changelog and/or in a comment. If the > former, the function naming seems too generic (an observation entirely > based on how/where the function is used, you're not exactly verbose on > what this actually checks for other than what looks like a set of CPU > IDs but clearly there's more behind it). OK. renaming the function as amd_pmc_is_cpu_supported() would be fine? >
