[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b0e7ff16-c947-89a0-6bd9-56ee9a76e7ad@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:03:36 +0200
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, edubezval@...il.com,
kevin.wangtao@...aro.org, leo.yan@...aro.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
javi.merino@...nel.org, rui.zhang@...el.com,
daniel.thompson@...aro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] thermal/drivers/cpu_cooling: Introduce the cpu
idle cooling driver
On 16/04/2018 11:50, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 16-04-18, 11:45, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> Can you elaborate a bit ? I'm not sure to get the point.
>
> Sure. With your current code on Hikey960 (big/LITTLE), you end up
> creating two cooling devices, one for the big cluster and one for
> small cluster. Which is the right thing to do, as we also have two
> cpufreq cooling devices.
>
> But with the change Sudeep is referring to, the helper you used to get
> cluster id will return 0 (SoC id) for all the 8 CPUs. So your code
> will end up creating a single cpuidle cooling device for all the CPUs.
> Which would be wrong.
Is the semantic of topology_physical_package_id changing ? I don't
understand the change Sudeep is referring to.
I saw this attempt:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9959977/
>> BTW, Am I asked to change my code to stick to something which is not
>> merged ?
>
> Sudeep looked pretty confident on how the meaning of this routine is
> going to change very soon. I will let him respond on what guarantees
> we have that it will get merged :)
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists