[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DM6PR12MB26196A508D4B3523E38C0761E417A@DM6PR12MB2619.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 09:50:49 +0000
From: "Quan, Evan" <Evan.Quan@....com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
"Limonciello, Mario" <Mario.Limonciello@....com>
CC: "rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"lenb@...nel.org" <lenb@...nel.org>,
"Deucher, Alexander" <Alexander.Deucher@....com>,
"Koenig, Christian" <Christian.Koenig@....com>,
"Pan, Xinhui" <Xinhui.Pan@....com>,
"airlied@...il.com" <airlied@...il.com>,
"daniel@...ll.ch" <daniel@...ll.ch>,
"johannes@...solutions.net" <johannes@...solutions.net>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"mdaenzer@...hat.com" <mdaenzer@...hat.com>,
"maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com"
<maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
"tzimmermann@...e.de" <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
"hdegoede@...hat.com" <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
"jingyuwang_vip@....com" <jingyuwang_vip@....com>,
"Lazar, Lijo" <Lijo.Lazar@....com>,
"jim.cromie@...il.com" <jim.cromie@...il.com>,
"bellosilicio@...il.com" <bellosilicio@...il.com>,
"andrealmeid@...lia.com" <andrealmeid@...lia.com>,
"trix@...hat.com" <trix@...hat.com>,
"jsg@....id.au" <jsg@....id.au>, "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org" <amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V7 4/9] wifi: mac80211: Add support for ACPI WBRF
[AMD Official Use Only - General]
Hi Andrew,
I sent out a new V8 series last week.
A kernel parameter `wbrf` was introduced there to decide the policy.
Please help to check whether that makes sense to you.
Please share your insights there.
BR,
Evan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 4:10 AM
> To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario.Limonciello@....com>
> Cc: Quan, Evan <Evan.Quan@....com>; rafael@...nel.org; lenb@...nel.org;
> Deucher, Alexander <Alexander.Deucher@....com>; Koenig, Christian
> <Christian.Koenig@....com>; Pan, Xinhui <Xinhui.Pan@....com>;
> airlied@...il.com; daniel@...ll.ch; johannes@...solutions.net;
> davem@...emloft.net; edumazet@...gle.com; kuba@...nel.org;
> pabeni@...hat.com; mdaenzer@...hat.com;
> maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com; tzimmermann@...e.de;
> hdegoede@...hat.com; jingyuwang_vip@....com; Lazar, Lijo
> <Lijo.Lazar@....com>; jim.cromie@...il.com; bellosilicio@...il.com;
> andrealmeid@...lia.com; trix@...hat.com; jsg@....id.au; arnd@...db.de;
> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org; amd-
> gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org; dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org; linux-
> wireless@...r.kernel.org; netdev@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 4/9] wifi: mac80211: Add support for ACPI WBRF
>
> > This comes back to the point that was mentioned by Johannes - you need
> > to have deep design understanding of the hardware to know whether or
> > not you will have producers that a consumer need to react to.
>
> Yes, this is the policy is keep referring to. I would expect that there is something
> somewhere in ACPI which says for this machine, the policy is Yes/No.
>
> It could well be that AMD based machine has a different ACPI extension to
> indicate this policy to what Intel machine has. As far as i understand it, you
> have not submitted this yet for formal approval, this is all vendor specific, so
> Intel could do it completely differently. Hence i would expect a generic API to
> tell the core what the policy is, and your glue code can call into ACPI to find out
> that information, and then tell the core.
>
> > If all producers indicate their frequency and all consumers react to
> > it you may have activated mitigations that are unnecessary. The
> > hardware designer may have added extra shielding or done the layout
> > such that they're not needed.
>
> And the policy will indicate No, nothing needs to be done. The core can then
> tell produces and consumes not to bother telling the core anything.
>
> > So I don't think we're ever going to be in a situation that the
> > generic implementation should be turned on by default. It's a "developer
> knob".
>
> Wrong. You should have a generic core, which your AMD CPU DDR device
> plugs into. The Intel CPU DDR device can plug into, the nvidea GPU can plug
> into, your Radeon GPU can plug into, the intel ARC can plug into, the generic
> WiFi core plugs into, etc.
>
> > If needed these can then be enabled using the AMD ACPI interface, a DT
> > one if one is developed or maybe even an allow-list of SMBIOS strings.
>
> Notice i've not mentioned DT for a while. I just want a generic core, which
> AMD, Intel, nvidea, Ampare, Graviton, Qualcomm, Marvell, ..., etc can use. We
> should be solving this problem once, for everybody, not adding a solution for
> just one vendor.
>
> Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists