On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 01:04:19PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote: > Yes, you're right. I thought using the existing data structures would work, > but it > seems I messed up the implementation.
Not only that - your idea wouldn't fly because the per-CPU stuff you were using gets torn down when the CPU goes offline so you can't use them on resume because they're not there yet. > Banks 15 and 16 should have an address for block 1 also. Do you have PFEH > enabled on your system? That would cause MISC0 to be RAZ so we won't > get the MISC1 address. I'll try it myself also and let you know. I check PFEH is enabled how? > I think this good for now. We'll probably need to change it in the > future, but maybe we can clean up all the thresholding blocks code and > make it simpler when we do change it. Ok. > This hunk could go above the !block. Though maybe the macro is lighter than > the > array lookup. It'll work either way, but I'm just thinking out loud. Yeah, it doesn't matter in that case. > Since we're caching the values during init, we can drop all the > *_on_cpu() calls. What do you think? Well, if they're all the same on all CPUs, sure. That's your call. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) --