Message ID | 20250215005244.1212285-10-superm1@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Superseded, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | amd-pstate cleanups | expand |
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 06:52:36PM -0600, Mario Limonciello wrote: > From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com> > > If a CPU is missing a policy then the unit test is skipped for the rest > of the CPUs on the system. > > Instead just skip the rest of that test and continue to test the rest > of them. Along with this change, does it make sense to only loop over the online CPUs instead of possible CPUs ?
On 2/17/2025 05:38, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 06:52:36PM -0600, Mario Limonciello wrote: >> From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com> >> >> If a CPU is missing a policy then the unit test is skipped for the rest >> of the CPUs on the system. >> >> Instead just skip the rest of that test and continue to test the rest >> of them. > > Along with this change, does it make sense to only loop over the > online CPUs instead of possible CPUs ? > > Sure thing. Will change this patch for v3. Thanks!
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate-ut.c b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate-ut.c index 028527a0019ca..b888a5877ad93 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate-ut.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate-ut.c @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ static int amd_pstate_ut_check_perf(u32 index) policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu); if (!policy) - break; + continue; cpudata = policy->driver_data; if (get_shared_mem()) { @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ static int amd_pstate_ut_check_freq(u32 index) policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu); if (!policy) - break; + continue; cpudata = policy->driver_data; if (!((policy->cpuinfo.max_freq >= cpudata->nominal_freq) &&