Re: [PATCH v6 6/9] ACPI: CPPC: add APIs and sysfs interface for min/max_perf

From: Sumit Gupta

Date: Tue Jan 27 2026 - 06:22:53 EST



On 1/20/26 15:56, Sumit Gupta wrote:
Add cppc_get/set_min_perf() and cppc_get/set_max_perf() APIs to read
and
write the MIN_PERF and MAX_PERF registers.

Also add sysfs interfaces (min_perf, max_perf) in cppc_cpufreq driver
to expose these controls to userspace. The sysfs values are in
frequency
(kHz) for consistency with other cpufreq sysfs files.

A mutex is used to serialize sysfs store operations to ensure hardware
register writes and perf_ctrls updates are atomic.

Signed-off-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
  drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c       |  44 +++++++++
  drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 157
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  include/acpi/cppc_acpi.h       |  20 +++++
  3 files changed, 221 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
index 45c6bd6ec24b..46bf45f8b0f3 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
@@ -1743,6 +1743,50 @@ int cppc_set_auto_sel(int cpu, bool enable)
  }
  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cppc_set_auto_sel);

+/**
+ * cppc_get_min_perf - Read minimum performance register.
+ * @cpu: CPU from which to read register.
+ * @min_perf: Return address.
+ */
+int cppc_get_min_perf(int cpu, u64 *min_perf)
+{
+     return cppc_get_reg_val(cpu, MIN_PERF, min_perf);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cppc_get_min_perf);
+
+/**
+ * cppc_set_min_perf - Write minimum performance register.
+ * @cpu: CPU to which to write register.
+ * @min_perf: the desired minimum performance value to be updated.
+ */
+int cppc_set_min_perf(int cpu, u32 min_perf)
+{
+     return cppc_set_reg_val(cpu, MIN_PERF, min_perf);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cppc_set_min_perf);
+
+/**
+ * cppc_get_max_perf - Read maximum performance register.
+ * @cpu: CPU from which to read register.
+ * @max_perf: Return address.
+ */
+int cppc_get_max_perf(int cpu, u64 *max_perf)
+{
+     return cppc_get_reg_val(cpu, MAX_PERF, max_perf);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cppc_get_max_perf);
+
+/**
+ * cppc_set_max_perf - Write maximum performance register.
+ * @cpu: CPU to which to write register.
+ * @max_perf: the desired maximum performance value to be updated.
+ */
+int cppc_set_max_perf(int cpu, u32 max_perf)
+{
+     return cppc_set_reg_val(cpu, MAX_PERF, max_perf);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cppc_set_max_perf);
+
  /**
   * cppc_set_enable - Set to enable CPPC on the processor by
writing the
   * Continuous Performance Control package EnableRegister field.
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
index 229880c4eedb..66e183b45fb0 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
@@ -28,6 +28,8 @@

  static struct cpufreq_driver cppc_cpufreq_driver;

+static DEFINE_MUTEX(cppc_cpufreq_autonomous_lock);
+

Shouldn't concurrent access be handled by the policy->rwsem ?

I think this can be checked using either:
- lockdep_assert_held_write(&policy->rwsem)
- lockdep_assert_held_read(&policy->rwsem)

in store/show_max_perf() for instance.


You're right. The cpufreq sysfs already holds policy->rwsem for
show/store callbacks. I'll remove the mutex and add lockdep
assertions for the expected locking.

I think it's ok not to have lockde assertions.

It seems that it is a common assumption sysfs files cannot be modified

concurrently. None of the cpufreq driver seems to use lockdep assertion.


Sure. I will just remove the mutex, keeping it consistent with other cpufreq drivers.

Thank you,
Sumit Gupta



--------
File: drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
  static ssize_t store(struct kobject *kobj, struct attribute *attr,
                     const char *buf, size_t count)
  {
      struct cpufreq_policy *policy = to_policy(kobj);
      ....
      guard(cpufreq_policy_write)(policy);
--------

Thank you,
Sumit Gupta