From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Cc: souvik.chakravarty@arm.com, viresh.kumar@linaro.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, morten.rasmussen@arm.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, sudeep.holla@arm.com,
will@kernel.org, valentin.schneider@arm.com,
dietmar.eggemann@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] arm64: implement CPPC FFH support using AMUs
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:40:32 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200911144032.GC12835@gaia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200826130309.28027-5-ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 02:03:09PM +0100, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> +/*
> + * Refer to drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c for the description of the functions
> + * below.
> + */
> +bool cpc_ffh_supported(void)
> +{
> + const struct cpumask *cnt_cpu_mask = cpus_with_amu_counters();
> + int cpu = nr_cpu_ids;
> +
> + if (cnt_cpu_mask)
> + cpu = cpumask_any_and(cnt_cpu_mask, cpu_present_mask);
> +
> + if ((cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) || !freq_counters_valid(cpu))
> + return false;
> +
> + return true;
> +}
IIUC, the only need for the cpumask is this function, the others would
have worked just fine with the existing cpu_has_amu_feat(). So you have
a lot more !cnt_cpu_mask checks now.
I wonder whether instead you could add a new function near
cpu_has_amu_feat(), something like get_cpu_with_amu_feat() and do the
cpumask_any_and() in there.
--
Catalin
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Cc: will@kernel.org, sudeep.holla@arm.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com,
valentin.schneider@arm.com, souvik.chakravarty@arm.com,
viresh.kumar@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] arm64: implement CPPC FFH support using AMUs
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:40:32 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200911144032.GC12835@gaia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200826130309.28027-5-ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 02:03:09PM +0100, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> +/*
> + * Refer to drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c for the description of the functions
> + * below.
> + */
> +bool cpc_ffh_supported(void)
> +{
> + const struct cpumask *cnt_cpu_mask = cpus_with_amu_counters();
> + int cpu = nr_cpu_ids;
> +
> + if (cnt_cpu_mask)
> + cpu = cpumask_any_and(cnt_cpu_mask, cpu_present_mask);
> +
> + if ((cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) || !freq_counters_valid(cpu))
> + return false;
> +
> + return true;
> +}
IIUC, the only need for the cpumask is this function, the others would
have worked just fine with the existing cpu_has_amu_feat(). So you have
a lot more !cnt_cpu_mask checks now.
I wonder whether instead you could add a new function near
cpu_has_amu_feat(), something like get_cpu_with_amu_feat() and do the
cpumask_any_and() in there.
--
Catalin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-11 14:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-26 13:03 [PATCH 0/4] arm64: cppc: add FFH support using AMUs Ionela Voinescu
2020-08-26 13:03 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-08-26 13:03 ` [PATCH 1/4] arm64: cpufeature: restructure AMU feedback function Ionela Voinescu
2020-08-26 13:03 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-08-26 13:03 ` [PATCH 2/4] arm64: wrap and generalise counter read functions Ionela Voinescu
2020-08-26 13:03 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-08-27 3:36 ` kernel test robot
2020-08-27 9:30 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-08-27 9:30 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-08-26 13:03 ` [PATCH 3/4] arm64: split counter validation function Ionela Voinescu
2020-08-26 13:03 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-08-26 13:03 ` [PATCH 4/4] arm64: implement CPPC FFH support using AMUs Ionela Voinescu
2020-08-26 13:03 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-09-11 14:40 ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2020-09-11 14:40 ` Catalin Marinas
2020-09-22 16:07 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-09-22 16:07 ` Ionela Voinescu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200911144032.GC12835@gaia \
--to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=ionela.voinescu@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=souvik.chakravarty@arm.com \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.