[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5b2eb27b-b852-97ff-b099-fe4c22b44937@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 10:12:34 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: ilialin@...eaurora.org, mturquette@...libre.com, sboyd@...nel.org,
robh@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
nm@...com, lgirdwood@...il.com, broonie@...nel.org,
andy.gross@...aro.org, david.brown@...aro.org,
catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com, rjw@...ysocki.net,
linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-soc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, rnayak@...eaurora.org,
amit.kucheria@...aro.org, nicolas.dechesne@...aro.org,
celster@...eaurora.org, tfinkel@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Add Kryo CPU scaling driver
On 22/05/18 07:56, ilialin@...eaurora.org wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
>> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 16:05
[...]
>>
>>
>> That may be true and I am not that bothered about it. But assuming physical
>> ordering from the logical cpu number is *incorrect* and will break if kernel
>> decides to change the allocation algorithm. Kernel provides no guarantee on
>> that, so you need to depend on some physical ID or may be DT to achieve
>> what your want. But the current code as it stands is wrong.
>
> Got your point. In fact CPUs are numbered 0-3 and ordered into 2 clusters in the DT:
>
> cpus {
> #address-cells = <2>;
> #size-cells = <0>;
>
> CPU0: cpu@0 {
> ...
> reg = <0x0 0x0>;
> ...
> };
>
> CPU1: cpu@1 {
> ...
> reg = <0x0 0x1>;
> ...
> };
>
> CPU2: cpu@100 {
> ...
> reg = <0x0 0x100>;
> ...
> };
>
> CPU3: cpu@101 {
> ...
> reg = <0x0 0x101>;
> ...
> };
>
> cpu-map {
> cluster0 {
> core0 {
> cpu = <&CPU0>;
> };
>
> core1 {
> cpu = <&CPU1>;
> };
> };
>
> cluster1 {
> core0 {
> cpu = <&CPU2>;
> };
>
> core1 {
> cpu = <&CPU3>;
> };
> };
> };
> };
>
> As far, as I understand, they are probed in the same order.
Yes that's correct today, will that have to remain same for ever ?
No it's not user ABI and kernel can decide to change the allocation
order. What if for some reason one/more CPUs fails to boot or even
configured not to boot ?
> However, to be certain that the physical CPU is the one I intend to
> configure, I have to fetch the device structure pointer for the cpu-map ->
> clusterX -> core0 -> cpu path. Could you suggest a kernel API to do
> that?
>
Let's rewind a bit. Do you supply OPPs only on CPU0 and CPU2 ?
If yes, that's again wrong. Simple solution is to parse all logical
CPUs and skip if the share OPPs with some other CPUs. I think that
logic already exists in OPP library IIRC.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
Powered by blists - more mailing lists