On 28.08.2025 12:02, Penny Zheng wrote:
> @@ -693,6 +699,120 @@ int acpi_set_pdc_bits(unsigned int acpi_id,
> XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(uint32) pdc)
> return ret;
> }
>
> +static void print_CPPC(const struct xen_processor_cppc *cppc_data)
> +{
> + printk("\t_CPC: highest_perf=%u, lowest_perf=%u, "
> + "nominal_perf=%u, lowest_nonlinear_perf=%u, "
> + "nominal_mhz=%uMHz, lowest_mhz=%uMHz\n",
> + cppc_data->cpc.highest_perf, cppc_data->cpc.lowest_perf,
> + cppc_data->cpc.nominal_perf, cppc_data->cpc.lowest_nonlinear_perf,
> + cppc_data->cpc.nominal_mhz, cppc_data->cpc.lowest_mhz);
> +}
> +
> +int set_cppc_pminfo(unsigned int acpi_id,
> + const struct xen_processor_cppc *cppc_data)
> +{
> + int ret = 0, cpuid;
Eclair doesn't like this:
Reports for service MC3A2.R5.3
service MC3A2.R5.3: (required) An identifier declared in an inner scope shall
not hide an identifier declared in an outer scope (1 of 1 violation)
violation for MC3A2.R5.3 untagged
xen/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h:130.20-130.24:
non-compliant function `cpuid(unsigned, unsigned*, unsigned*, unsigned*,
unsigned*)' (unit `xen/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c' with target
`xen/drivers/cpufreq/.cpufreq.o.tmp'): there is another identifier `cpuid'
xen/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c:726.18-726.22:
non-compliant local variable `cpuid': there is another identifier `cpuid'
I'm fixing this up for you, but I have to admit that I'm getting tired of
doing such cleanups for supposedly-ready-to-commit patches.
Jan
