Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] Revert "ACPI: CPPC: Adjust debug messages in amd_set_max_freq_ratio() to warn"

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Fri, May 8, 2026 at 9:09 PM Mario Limonciello
<mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/8/26 14:04, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 1:01 AM Mario Limonciello
> > <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Some older systems don't support CPPC in the firmware and this just makes
> >> noise for them when booting.  Drop back to debug.
> >>
> >> This reverts commit 21fb59ab4b9767085f4fe1edbdbe3177fbb9ec97.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 21fb59ab4b976 ("ACPI: CPPC: Adjust debug messages in amd_set_max_freq_ratio() to warn")
> >> Suggested-by: Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@xxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>   arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c | 6 +++---
> >>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c
> >> index d7c8ef1e354d3..be4c5e9e5ff6f 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c
> >> @@ -88,19 +88,19 @@ static void amd_set_max_freq_ratio(void)
> >>
> >>          rc = cppc_get_perf_caps(0, &perf_caps);
> >>          if (rc) {
> >> -               pr_warn("Could not retrieve perf counters (%d)\n", rc);
> >> +               pr_debug("Could not retrieve perf counters (%d)\n", rc);
> >>                  return;
> >>          }
> >>
> >>          rc = amd_get_boost_ratio_numerator(0, &numerator);
> >>          if (rc) {
> >> -               pr_warn("Could not retrieve highest performance (%d)\n", rc);
> >> +               pr_debug("Could not retrieve highest performance (%d)\n", rc);
> >>                  return;
> >>          }
> >>          nominal_perf = perf_caps.nominal_perf;
> >>
> >>          if (!nominal_perf) {
> >> -               pr_warn("Could not retrieve nominal performance\n");
> >> +               pr_debug("Could not retrieve nominal performance\n");
> >>                  return;
> >>          }
> >>
> >> --
> >
> > It looks like this could be applied without the rest of the series.
> > Do you want me to do that?
>
> Yeah; go ahead and pick this one up.  Thanks.

Done, thanks!

> >
> > Also, do I understand correctly that the rest of the series depends on
> > Sumit's patch set at
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260430142430.755437-2-sumitg@xxxxxxxxxx/#r
>
> That's correct.

OK, so changes are requested in that patchset and there will be a v3
(at least), so please resend this one when the dependency is
finalized.