Re: [PATCH v6 5/9] ACPI: CPPC: Extend cppc_set_epp_perf() for FFH/SystemMemory

[Sumit Gupta]

> > > On 2026/1/20 22:56, Sumit Gupta wrote:
> > > > Extend cppc_set_epp_perf() to write both auto_sel and energy_perf
> > > > registers when they are in FFH or SystemMemory address space.
> > > >
> > > > This keeps the behavior consistent with PCC case where both registers
> > > > are already updated together, but was missing for FFH/SystemMemory.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >    drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++---
> > > >    1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
> > > > index de35aeb07833..45c6bd6ec24b 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
> > > > @@ -1562,6 +1562,8 @@ int cppc_set_epp_perf(int cpu, struct cppc_perf_ctrls *perf_ctrls, bool enable)
> > > >         struct cpc_register_resource *auto_sel_reg;
> > > >         struct cpc_desc *cpc_desc = per_cpu(cpc_desc_ptr, cpu);
> > > >         struct cppc_pcc_data *pcc_ss_data = NULL;
> > > > +     bool autosel_ffh_sysmem;
> > > > +     bool epp_ffh_sysmem;
> > > >         int ret;
> > > >
> > > >         if (!cpc_desc) {
> > > > @@ -1572,6 +1574,11 @@ int cppc_set_epp_perf(int cpu, struct cppc_perf_ctrls *perf_ctrls, bool enable)
> > > >         auto_sel_reg = &cpc_desc->cpc_regs[AUTO_SEL_ENABLE];
> > > >         epp_set_reg = &cpc_desc->cpc_regs[ENERGY_PERF];
> > > >
> > > > +     epp_ffh_sysmem = CPC_SUPPORTED(epp_set_reg) &&
> > > > +             (CPC_IN_FFH(epp_set_reg) || CPC_IN_SYSTEM_MEMORY(epp_set_reg));
> > > > +     autosel_ffh_sysmem = CPC_SUPPORTED(auto_sel_reg) &&
> > > > +             (CPC_IN_FFH(auto_sel_reg) || CPC_IN_SYSTEM_MEMORY(auto_sel_reg));
> > > > +
> > > >         if (CPC_IN_PCC(epp_set_reg) || CPC_IN_PCC(auto_sel_reg)) {
> > > >                 if (pcc_ss_id < 0) {
> > > >                         pr_debug("Invalid pcc_ss_id for CPU:%d\n", cpu);
> > > > @@ -1597,11 +1604,22 @@ int cppc_set_epp_perf(int cpu, struct cppc_perf_ctrls *perf_ctrls, bool enable)
> > > >                 ret = send_pcc_cmd(pcc_ss_id, CMD_WRITE);
> > > >                 up_write(&pcc_ss_data->pcc_lock);
> > > >         } else if (osc_cpc_flexible_adr_space_confirmed &&
> > > > -                CPC_SUPPORTED(epp_set_reg) && CPC_IN_FFH(epp_set_reg)) {
> > > > -             ret = cpc_write(cpu, epp_set_reg, perf_ctrls->energy_perf);
> > > > +                (epp_ffh_sysmem || autosel_ffh_sysmem)) {
> > > > +             if (autosel_ffh_sysmem) {
> > > > +                     ret = cpc_write(cpu, auto_sel_reg, enable);
> > > > +                     if (ret)
> > > > +                             return ret;
> > > > +             }
> > > > +
> > > > +             if (epp_ffh_sysmem) {
> > > > +                     ret = cpc_write(cpu, epp_set_reg,
> > > > +                                     perf_ctrls->energy_perf);
> > > > +                     if (ret)
> > > > +                             return ret;
> > > > +             }
> > > Don't know if such a scenario exists, but if one of them is in PCC and the
> > > other is in FFH or system memory, only the one in PCC will be updated
> > > based on your modifications.
> > The current code handles mixed cases correctly.
> > When either register is in PCC, the first if block executes and calls
> > cpc_write() for both registers. The cpc_write() internally handles
> > each register's type (PCC, FFH, or SystemMemory)
> Yes, I was wrong.
>
> According to the first if block, cpc_wite() is OK to be called for a
> register not in PCC. So it looks like this 'else if' is unnecessary. Only
> CPC_SUPPORTED is needed to be checked before calling cpc_write(), isn't it?

Yes, Once 'osc_cpc_flexible_adr_space_confirmed' is removed,
cppc_set_epp_perf() can be simplified to just call cpc_write() for
supported registers and only do PCC handling when needed.
As Pierre suggested [1], I will send a separate patch set for this
cleanup after the current patch set.
 [1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/c3fd7249-3cba-43e9-85c6-eadd711c0527@xxxxxxxxxx/

Thank you,
Sumit Gupta

....