[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180416101021.GD4244@vireshk-i7>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 15:40:21 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...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 16-04-18, 12:03, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> 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 ?
That's what I understood from his email.
> I don't
> understand the change Sudeep is referring to.
>
> I saw this attempt:
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9959977/
@Sudeep: Is using topology_cod_id() is okay in that case ?
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists