On Monday, December 18, 2017 9:38:20 AM CET Gautham R Shenoy wrote: > Hi Balbir, > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 02:15:25PM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Gautham R. Shenoy > > <e...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > From: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <e...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > > > The code in powernv-cpufreq, makes the following two assumptions which > > > are not guaranteed by the device-tree bindings: > > > > > > 1) Pstate ids are continguous: This is used in pstate_to_idx() to > > > obtain the reverse map from a pstate to it's corresponding > > > entry into the cpufreq frequency table. > > > > > > 2) Every Pstate should always lie between the max and the min > > > pstates that are explicitly reported in the device tree: This > > > is used to determine whether a pstate reported by the PMSR is > > > out of bounds. > > > > > > Both these assumptions are unwarranted and can change on future > > > platforms. > > > > While this is a good thing, I wonder if it is worth the complexity. Pstates > > are contiguous because they define transitions in incremental value > > of change in frequency and I can't see how this can be broken in the > > future? > > In the future, we can have the OPAL firmware give us a smaller set of > pstates instead of expose every one of them. As it stands today, for > most of the workloads, we will need at best 20-30 pstates and not > beyond that.
I'm not sure about the status here. Is this good to go as is or is it going to be updated? Thanks, Rafael