On Fri, 2021-02-05 at 13:46 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 11:07 AM Yunfeng Ye <yeyunf...@huawei.com>
> wrote:
> > It's not a good way to access the phys_proc_id of cpuinfo directly.
> > So using topology_physical_package_id(cpu) instead.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunf...@huawei.com>
>
> Srinivas, Rui, any concerns?
Looks good.
Thanks,
Srinivas
>
> > ---
> > drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c
> > b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c
> > index 5f3d39b8212a..8888adcb3927 100644
> > --- a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c
> > +++ b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c
> > @@ -547,7 +547,7 @@ static void rapl_init_domains(struct
> > rapl_package *rp)
> >
> > if (i == RAPL_DOMAIN_PLATFORM && rp->id > 0) {
> > snprintf(rd->name, RAPL_DOMAIN_NAME_LENGTH,
> > "psys-%d",
> > - cpu_data(rp-
> > >lead_cpu).phys_proc_id);
> > + topology_physical_package_id(rp-
> > >lead_cpu));
> > } else
> > snprintf(rd->name, RAPL_DOMAIN_NAME_LENGTH,
> > "%s",
> > rapl_domain_names[i]);
> > --
> > 2.27.0
> >
