On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 06:59:02AM +0800, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Alexander Monakov <amonakov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 25 Apr 2021, Huang Rui wrote:
> >
> > > Some AMD Ryzen generations has different calculation method on maximum
> > > perf. 255 is not for all asics, some specific generations should use 166
> > > as the maximum perf. Otherwise, it will report incorrect frequency value
> > > like below:
> >
> > The commit message says '255', but the code:
> >
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
> > > @@ -1170,3 +1170,19 @@ void set_dr_addr_mask(unsigned long mask, int dr)
> > > break;
> > > }
> > > }
> > > +
> > > +u32 amd_get_highest_perf(void)
> > > +{
> > > + struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &boot_cpu_data;
> > > +
> > > + if (c->x86 == 0x17 && ((c->x86_model >= 0x30 && c->x86_model < 0x40) ||
> > > + (c->x86_model >= 0x70 && c->x86_model < 0x80)))
> > > + return 166;
> > > +
> > > + if (c->x86 == 0x19 && ((c->x86_model >= 0x20 && c->x86_model < 0x30) ||
> > > + (c->x86_model >= 0x40 && c->x86_model < 0x70)))
> > > + return 166;
> > > +
> > > + return 225;
> > > +}
> >
> > says 225? This is probably a typo? In any case they are out of sync.
> >
> > Alexander
>
> Ugh - that's indeed a good question ...
>
Ah sorry! It's my typo. It should be 255 (confirmed in the ucode).
Alexander, thanks a lot to catch this!
Ingo, would you mind to update it from 225 -> 255 while you apply this
patch or let me know if you want me to send v5?
Thanks,
Ray
