Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1647007
| From | Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] ARM: cpuidle: Support asymmetric idle definition |
| Date | 2017-05-22 16:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tJWOK-6Ut-21@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <tJSBs-4qg-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <tJSL8-4td-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <tJSUN-4wq-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <tJUWC-5LA-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <tJVfY-68S-33@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 22/05/2017 15:02, Sudeep Holla wrote: [ ... ] >>>>>> + drv->cpumask = &cpu_topology[cpu].core_sibling; >>>>>> + >>>>> >>>>> This is not always true and not architecturally guaranteed. So instead >>>>> of introducing this broken dependency, better to extract information >>>>> from the device tree. >>>> >>>> Can you give an example of a broken dependency ? >>>> >>>> The cpu topology information is extracted from the device tree. So >>>> if the topology is broken, the DT is broken also. Otherwise, the >>>> topology code must fix the broken dependency from the DT. >>>> >>> >>> No, I meant there's no guarantee that all designs must follow this rule. >>> I don't mean CPU topology code or binding is broken. What I meant is >>> linking CPU topology to CPU power domains is wrong. We should make use >>> of DT you infer this information as it's already there. Topology bindings >>> makes no reference to power and hence you simply can't infer that >>> information from it. >> >> Ok, I will have a look how power domains can fit in this. >> >> However I'm curious to know a platform with a cluster idle state >> powering down only a subset of CPUs belonging to the cluster. >> > > We can't reuse CPU topology for power domains: > 1. As I mentioned earlier for sure, it won't be same with ARM DynamIQ. > 2. Topology bindings strictly restrict themselves with topology and not > connected with power-domains. We also have separate power domain > bindings. Yes, the theory is valid, but practically nowadays I don't see where we have a cluster defined by a topology with a different cluster power domain. By the way, if you have any pointer to documentation for DynamIQ PM and design? I would be interested to have a look. > We need to separate topology and power domains. We have some dependency > like this in big little drivers(both CPUfreq and CPUIdle) but that > dependencies must be removed as they are not architecturally guaranteed. > Lorenzo had a patch[1] to solve this issue, I can post the latest > version of it again and continue the discussion after some basic > rebase/testing. Actually, I am not convinced by the approach proposed in this patch. Let me have a look at the idle power domain before, I do believe we can do something much more simple. Thanks. -- Daniel -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH] ARM: cpuidle: Support asymmetric idle definition Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2017-05-19 18:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] ARM: cpuidle: Support asymmetric idle definition Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2017-05-22 12:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] ARM: cpuidle: Support asymmetric idle definition Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2017-05-22 12:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] ARM: cpuidle: Support asymmetric idle definition Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2017-05-22 12:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] ARM: cpuidle: Support asymmetric idle definition Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2017-05-22 14:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] ARM: cpuidle: Support asymmetric idle definition Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2017-05-22 15:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] ARM: cpuidle: Support asymmetric idle definition Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org> - 2017-05-22 15:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] ARM: cpuidle: Support asymmetric idle definition Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2017-05-22 16:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] ARM: cpuidle: Support asymmetric idle definition Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2017-05-22 16:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] ARM: cpuidle: Support asymmetric idle definition Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2017-05-22 17:10 +0200
csiph-web