On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 02:49:35PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 16/04/2018 14:31, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 02:10:30PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >> On 16/04/2018 12:10, Viresh Kumar wrote: > >>> 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. > >> > >> Actually there is no impact with the change Sudeep is referring to. It > >> is for ACPI, we are DT based. Confirmed with Jeremy. > >> > > > > No, it will change for DT. The aim is to be consistent irrespective of > > h/w or f/w description(i.e ADCPI or DT) > > What will happen with the code using topology_physical_package_id ? > > drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c: int id = > topology_physical_package_id(cpu); > drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c: if > (topology_physical_package_id(i) == id) > drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c: if > (topology_physical_package_id(i) == > drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c: topology_physical_package_id(cpu)) >
ACPI and hence will have right notion of package. > drivers/block/mtip32xx/mtip32xx.c: > topology_physical_package_id(cpumask_first(node_mask)), > Not sure if it was ever used on ARM/ARM64 > drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c: return > topology_physical_package_id(cpu); Yes this is main affected driver. I don't think it's used by any ARM64 platform anymore. This is one of the reason I divorced SCPI driver from this recently. ARM32 may still retain old definition of package_id(not sure, depends if anyone as need to change that and maintainers view on that). If not, we need to fix this driver along with the code changing the definition. > > drivers/crypto/qat/qat_common/adf_common_drv.h: return > topology_physical_package_id(smp_processor_id()); > drivers/crypto/virtio/virtio_crypto_common.h: node = > topology_physical_package_id(cpu); > x86 specific and never assumed cluster id. > kernel/events/core.c: event_pkg = > topology_physical_package_id(event_cpu); > kernel/events/core.c: local_pkg = > topology_physical_package_id(local_cpu); > Generic and hence never assumed cluster id. -- Regards, Sudeep
