Hi Len,
thank you for your reply. On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 3:19 PM Len Brown <l...@kernel.org> wrote: > > Thanks for the close read, Doug. > > This field size actually varies from system to system, > but the reality is that the offset is never that big, and so the > smaller mask is sufficient. Disagree. I want to use an offset of 26. > Finally, this may all be moot, because there is discussion that using > the offset this way is simply erroneous. Disagree. It works great. As far as I know/recall I was the only person that responded to Rui's thread "thermal/intel: introduce tcc cooling driver" [1] And, I spent quite a bit of time doing so. However, I agree the response seems different between the two systems under test, Rui's and mine. [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=161070345329806&w=2 > stay tuned. O.K. ... Doug > > -Len > > > On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 12:07 PM Doug Smythies <doug.smyth...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > The TCC offset mask is incorrect, resulting in > > incorrect target temperature calculations, if > > the offset is big enough to exceed the mask size. > > > > Signed-off-by: Doug Smythies <dsmyth...@telus.net> > > --- > > tools/power/x86/turbostat/turbostat.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/power/x86/turbostat/turbostat.c > > b/tools/power/x86/turbostat/turbostat.c > > index 389ea5209a83..d7acdd4d16c4 100644 > > --- a/tools/power/x86/turbostat/turbostat.c > > +++ b/tools/power/x86/turbostat/turbostat.c > > @@ -4823,7 +4823,7 @@ int read_tcc_activation_temp() > > > > target_c = (msr >> 16) & 0xFF; > > > > - offset_c = (msr >> 24) & 0xF; > > + offset_c = (msr >> 24) & 0x3F; > > > > tcc = target_c - offset_c; > > > > -- > > 2.25.1 > > > > > -- > Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center
