On 27.05.2025 10:48, Penny Zheng wrote: > --- a/xen/drivers/acpi/pmstat.c > +++ b/xen/drivers/acpi/pmstat.c > @@ -253,7 +253,8 @@ static int get_cpufreq_para(struct xen_sysctl_pm_op *op) > else > strlcpy(op->u.get_para.scaling_driver, "Unknown", CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN); > > - if ( !hwp_active() ) > + /* bypass hwp and amd-cppc-epp driver */
Nit (comment style): Want to start with a capital letter. See ./CODING_STYLE. > + if ( !hwp_active() && cpufreq_driver.setpolicy == NULL ) We generally prefer the shorter "!cpufreq_driver.setpolicy". And then - is using the presence of that hook really a good criteria to use here (and below)? > @@ -346,7 +347,8 @@ static int set_cpufreq_para(struct xen_sysctl_pm_op *op) > if ( !policy || !policy->governor ) > return -EINVAL; > > - if ( hwp_active() ) > + /* bypass hwp and amd-cppc-epp driver */ > + if ( hwp_active() || cpufreq_driver.setpolicy == NULL ) > return -EOPNOTSUPP; Isn't this the wrong way round? I.e. don't you mean "!= NULL" (or the equivalent thereof) here? Jan
