All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Ashwin Chaugule <ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org>
Cc: "rjw@rjwysocki.net" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	"jaswinder.singh@linaro.org" <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org>,
	"patches@linaro.org" <patches@linaro.org>,
	"viresh.kumar@linaro.org" <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/8] ACPI: Split out ACPI PSS from ACPI Processor driver
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:20:46 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <55AD03BE.4070209@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <09d1b5cf25ed3117b9e1b8feeb40ddf801557039.1436464513.git.ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org>



On 09/07/15 19:04, Ashwin Chaugule wrote:
> The ACPI processor driver is currently tied too closely
> to the ACPI P-states (PSS) and other related constructs
> for controlling CPU performance.
>
> The newer ACPI specification (v5.1 onwards) introduces
> alternative methods to PSS. These new mechanisms are
> described within each ACPI Processor object and so they
> need to be scanned whenever a new Processor object is detected.
> This patch introduces a new Kconfig symbol to allow for
> finer configurability among the two options for controlling
> performance states. There is no change in functionality and
> the option is auto-selected by the architecture Kconfig files.
>
> The following patchwork introduces CPPC: A newer method of
> controlling CPU performance. The OS is not expected to support
> CPPC and PSS at runtime. So the kconfig option lets us make
> these two mutually exclusive at compile time.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ashwin Chaugule <ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org>
> ---
>   arch/x86/Kconfig                |  1 +
>   drivers/acpi/Kconfig            | 19 ++++++---
>   drivers/acpi/Makefile           |  6 +--
>   drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 86 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>   drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig         |  2 +-
>   drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.x86     |  2 +
>   include/acpi/processor.h        | 94 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>   7 files changed, 142 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> index 226d569..93d150d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> @@ -143,6 +143,7 @@ config X86
>          select ACPI_LEGACY_TABLES_LOOKUP if ACPI
>          select X86_FEATURE_NAMES if PROC_FS
>          select SRCU
> +       select ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS if ACPI
>
>   config INSTRUCTION_DECODER
>          def_bool y
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
> index ab2cbb5..00748dc 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
> @@ -166,17 +166,26 @@ config ACPI_DOCK
>            This driver supports ACPI-controlled docking stations and removable
>            drive bays such as the IBM Ultrabay and the Dell Module Bay.
>
> +config ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS
> +       bool
> +       depends on ACPI_PROCESSOR && CPU_FREQ
> +       select THERMAL
> +       help
> +         This driver implements ACPI methods for controlling CPU performance
> +         using PSS methods as described in the ACPI spec. It also enables support
> +         for ACPI based performance throttling (TSS) and ACPI based thermal
> +         monitoring. It is required by several flavors of cpufreq
> +         performance-state drivers.
> +

Though I agree CPUFreq and the thermal control are related, having _PSS
in config name shouldn't match well IMO. You can have more generic name.

You are selecting one config while depending on the other, any
particular reason ?

I don't like adding these, but I leave it to Rafael.

Regards,
Sudeep

  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-07-20 14:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-07-09 18:04 [PATCH v7 0/8] CPUFreq driver using CPPC methods Ashwin Chaugule
2015-07-09 18:04 ` [PATCH v7 1/8] PCC: Initialize PCC Mailbox earlier at boot Ashwin Chaugule
2015-07-20 14:20   ` Sudeep Holla
2015-08-03 17:37     ` Ashwin Chaugule
2015-07-09 18:04 ` [PATCH v7 2/8] ACPI: Split out ACPI PSS from ACPI Processor driver Ashwin Chaugule
2015-07-18  0:01   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-18  0:03     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-08-03 17:26       ` Ashwin Chaugule
2015-08-03 17:24     ` Ashwin Chaugule
2015-07-20 14:20   ` Sudeep Holla [this message]
2015-07-20 21:59     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-08-03 17:49       ` Ashwin Chaugule
2015-08-03 17:29     ` Ashwin Chaugule
2015-08-04 14:50       ` Sudeep Holla
2015-07-09 18:04 ` [PATCH v7 3/8] ACPI: Decouple ACPI idle and ACPI processor drivers Ashwin Chaugule
2015-07-20 14:21   ` Sudeep Holla
2015-08-03 17:40     ` Ashwin Chaugule
2015-08-04 14:51       ` Sudeep Holla
2015-08-04 14:58         ` Ashwin Chaugule
2015-08-04 15:18           ` Sudeep Holla
2015-08-04 15:44             ` Ashwin Chaugule
2015-08-04 17:00               ` Sudeep Holla
2015-08-05 13:47                 ` Ashwin Chaugule
2015-07-09 18:04 ` [PATCH v7 4/8] ACPI: Introduce CPU performance controls using CPPC Ashwin Chaugule
2015-08-04 15:06   ` Sudeep Holla
2015-08-04 15:38     ` Ashwin Chaugule
2015-08-04 16:02       ` Sudeep Holla
2015-07-09 18:04 ` [PATCH v7 5/8] CPPC: Add a CPUFreq driver for use with CPPC Ashwin Chaugule
2015-07-20 14:22   ` Sudeep Holla
2015-07-20 22:07     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-21  8:52       ` Sudeep Holla
2015-07-21 14:27         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-21 15:32           ` Sudeep Holla
2015-07-09 18:04 ` [PATCH v7 6/8] ACPI: Add weak routines for ACPI CPU Hotplug Ashwin Chaugule
2015-07-09 18:04 ` [PATCH v7 7/8] CPPC: Probe for CPPC tables for each ACPI Processor object Ashwin Chaugule
2015-07-20 14:22   ` Sudeep Holla
2015-07-09 18:04 ` [PATCH v7 8/8] PCC: Enable PCC only when needed Ashwin Chaugule
2015-07-20 14:22   ` Sudeep Holla
2015-07-20 22:04     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-21  9:23       ` Sudeep Holla
2015-07-21 14:34         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-21 15:28           ` Sudeep Holla
2015-07-22  1:28             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-22  8:59               ` Sudeep Holla
2015-08-03 17:35               ` Ashwin Chaugule
2015-08-04 14:53                 ` Sudeep Holla

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=55AD03BE.4070209@arm.com \
    --to=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    --cc=ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org \
    --cc=jaswinder.singh@linaro.org \
    --cc=linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=patches@linaro.org \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.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.