On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Shyam Sundar S K wrote:
> Update the APMF function index 2 for family 1Ah, that gets the
> information of SBIOS requests (like the pending requests from BIOS,
extra space.
> custom notifications, updation of power limits etc).
>
> Co-developed-by: Patil Rajesh Reddy <Patil.Reddy@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Patil Rajesh Reddy <Patil.Reddy@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Shyam Sundar S K <Shyam-sundar.S-k@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/acpi.c | 6 ++++++
> drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/pmf.h | 13 +++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/acpi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/acpi.c
> index 1f287a147c57..1b2a099c0cef 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/acpi.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/acpi.c
> @@ -166,6 +166,12 @@ int apmf_get_auto_mode_def(struct amd_pmf_dev *pdev, struct apmf_auto_mode *data
> return apmf_if_call_store_buffer(pdev, APMF_FUNC_AUTO_MODE, data, sizeof(*data));
> }
>
> +int apmf_get_sbios_requests_v2(struct amd_pmf_dev *pdev, struct apmf_sbios_req_v2 *req)
> +{
> + return apmf_if_call_store_buffer(pdev, APMF_FUNC_SBIOS_REQUESTS,
> + req, sizeof(*req));
Fix the alignment please.
> +}
> +
> int apmf_get_sbios_requests(struct amd_pmf_dev *pdev, struct apmf_sbios_req *req)
> {
> return apmf_if_call_store_buffer(pdev, APMF_FUNC_SBIOS_REQUESTS,
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/pmf.h b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/pmf.h
> index 4364af72a7a3..f11d2a348696 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/pmf.h
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/pmf.h
> @@ -116,6 +116,18 @@ struct apmf_sbios_req {
> u8 skin_temp_hs2;
> } __packed;
>
> +struct apmf_sbios_req_v2 {
> + u16 size;
> + u32 pending_req;
> + u8 rsvd;
> + u32 update_ppt_pmf;
> + u32 update_ppt_pmf_apu_only;
> + u32 update_stt_min;
> + u8 update_stt_apu;
> + u8 update_stt_hs2;
Is it intentional that these do not match with the names in struct
apmf_sbios_req? I mean some of the fields look suspiciously close in name
so is the purpose still the same and somebody just invented new names for the
same field?
--
i.
