Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Report if CPU doesn't report boost technologies

[Erwan Velu]

I tried to put the message in a way to stay neutral, not saying if its
a real error or not.
Just reporting we were not able to find any boost cap on it.
Erwan,

Le mer. 20 fÃvr. 2019 Ã 12:16, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> a Ãcrit :
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:52 AM Erwan Velu <e.velu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Le 20/02/2019 Ã 11:41, Rafael J. Wysocki a Ãcrit :
> > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:11 AM Erwan Velu <erwanaliasr1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> There is some rare cases where CPB (and possibly IDA) are missing on processors.
> > >> This is the case fixed by commit f7f3dc00f612 ("x86/cpu/AMD: Fix erratum 1076 (CPB bit)") and following.
> > >>
> > >> In such context, the boost status isn't reported by /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/boost.
> > > So I'm not really sure why the extra message is needed.  It looks like
> > > this message will always be printed (with debug output enabled) if the
> > > current cpufreq driver is acpi-cpufreq and the boost attribute is not
> > > present in sysfs, which only is the case if CPB/IDA aren't there.
> > >
> > > Does it provide any additional information, then?
> >
> > When you know and read the code, yes this patch is too obvious.
> >
> > As a user when I was troubleshooting why the boost entry was _not_
> > populated on one CPU and was populated on another.
> >
> > Running acpi-cpufreq with dyndbg, I would have found useful to get that
> > hint.
> >
> > So that could helps users that never read that part of the code and
> > which are tricked into that configuration.
>
> OK, I see your point.
>
> I'll queue up the patch, but I guess I'll change the message.