On 23.09.2025 06:38, Penny Zheng wrote:
> --- a/xen/include/acpi/cpufreq/cpufreq.h
> +++ b/xen/include/acpi/cpufreq/cpufreq.h
> @@ -294,4 +294,16 @@ int acpi_cpufreq_register(void);
> int amd_cppc_cmdline_parse(const char *s, const char *e);
> int amd_cppc_register_driver(void);
>
> +/*
> + * Governor-less cpufreq driver indicates the driver doesn't rely on Xen
> + * governor to do performance tuning, mostly it has hardware built-in
> + * algorithm to calculate runtime workload and adjust cores frequency
> + * automatically, like Intel HWP, or CPPC in AMD.
> + */
> +static inline bool cpufreq_is_governorless(unsigned int cpuid)
> +{
> + return processor_pminfo[cpuid]->init && (hwp_active() ||
> + cpufreq_driver.setpolicy);
> +}
I have to admit that I'm quite disappointed, considering that I had made it
clear that you're expected to make sure you submit Misra-clean patches: This
introduces a new rule 5.3 violation. Which is even more so odd when - iirc -
there, earlier on, already was an issue with you naming a variable or
parameter "cpuid". Once again, in the interest of getting this in, I will
fix this up for you, but you really shouldn't be using committers' time like
this.
Jan
