Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] platform/x86/amd/hsmp: Family 1Ah client support

[M K, Muralidhara]

On 8/19/2026 10:17 PM, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper 
> caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
>
>
> On 8/19/26 02:31, Muralidhara M K wrote:
> > This series enables the HSMP driver on the Family 1Ah client platforms,
> > Models 80h-8Fh and E0h-E3h.
> >
> > The client parts drive a different mailbox from the server HSMP
> > interface, but the latest BIOS describes it through ACPI _CRS/_DSD the
> > same way a server socket's mailbox is described, and the parts speak
> > the Ryzen Master SMC message set instead of the server message IDs.
> > Patches 1-3 teach the driver the message set and let the client reach
> > its mailbox through the existing _CRS/_DSD-driven MMIO path, leaving
> > server behaviour unchanged, and patch 4 includes the telemetry table
> > those parts return. Only the ACPI driver probes them.
> >
> > Changes in v3:
> >
> >    - is_client_platform() now tells client and server apart through the
> >      ACPI-reported PM profile (FADT preferred_profile: PM_DESKTOP,
> >      PM_MOBILE, PM_WORKSTATION, PM_TABLET) instead of a hardcoded Family
> >      1Ah model range, the same signal amd-pstate already keys off of.
> >      Future client generations are recognised as long as firmware
> >      reports the right PM profile, with no driver update needed.
> >    - hsmp_desc() now resolves the running platform's descriptor once and
> >      caches the pointer behind READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() instead of
> >      recomputing it on every call. Concurrent first callers are benign,
> >      since every one of them computes and stores that same pointer, so
> >      the pair only needs to keep the load/store from being torn or
> >      reordered by the compiler, not order it against anything else.
> >    - The client message enum in amd_hsmp.h is now documented with
> >      kernel-doc, one @member entry per message describing its inputs
> >      and outputs, rather than a block comment plus a same-line comment
> >      per enumerator. Noted there that not every platform supports every
> >      message and that an unsupported one returns -ENOMSG.
> >    - Patch 4: the Telemetry Table RM layout moved out of the .rst and
> >      into amd_hsmp.h as real kernel-doc'd struct/enum declarations,
> >      giving userspace one authoritative definition of the byte layout.
> >      The .rst now just points at struct hsmp_telemetry_table_rm. The
> >      structs are now also packed to a 4-byte boundary to match
> >      firmware's actual layout, and the trailing NPU/PMF counters and
> >      spare padding firmware carries after the overclocking fields are
> >      no longer missing. Verified field-by-field against AMD's internal
> >      metrics table header and end-to-end against a live snapshot off
> >      Family 1Ah client hardware.
> >
> > Each patch builds individually at W=1 and is clean under
> > checkpatch.pl --strict, kernel-doc, codespell and the htmldocs build.
> >
> > Muralidhara M K (4):
> >    platform/x86/amd/hsmp: Add HSMP client support for Family 1Ah
> >    platform/x86/amd/hsmp: Route metric table through the client messages
> >    platform/x86/amd/hsmp: Add ACPI client support for Family 1Ah
> >    platform/x86/amd/hsmp: Document the client telemetry table
> >
> >   Documentation/arch/x86/amd_hsmp.rst  |  24 ++-
> >   arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/amd_hsmp.h | 398 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 
> > ++++++++++
> >   drivers/platform/x86/amd/hsmp/acpi.c |   2 +-
> >   drivers/platform/x86/amd/hsmp/hsmp.c | 273 +++++++++++++++++++++---
> >   drivers/platform/x86/amd/hsmp/hsmp.h |  25 +++
> >   5 files changed, 688 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
> >
> >
> > base-commit: 775f2078b38ff2121410a35302497a1e81b8e459
>
> Thank you very much for the changes you did in v3, I'm happy now with
> the changes.
>
> Reviewed-by: Mario Limonciello (AMD) <superm1@xxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks Mario.

Hi Ilpo,
 Could you please take a look at this series and share your feedback ?