All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pengyu Ma <pengyu.ma@windriver.com>
To: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	<rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powercap / RAPL : remove dependency on iosf_mbi
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:11:36 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5600C6E8.50602@windriver.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150921143629.4f597e1c@icelake>



On 09/22/2015 05:36 AM, Jacob Pan wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 11:48:14 +0800
> Pengyu Ma <pengyu.ma@windriver.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 09/18/2015 11:43 PM, Jacob Pan wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 02:09:55 +0200
>>> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, September 17, 2015 03:31:41 PM Pengyu Ma wrote:
>>>>> iosf_mbi is supported on Quark, Braswell, Baytrail and some Atom
>>>>> SoC, but RAPL is not limited to these SoC, it supports almost
>>>>> Intel CPUs. Remove this dependece to make RAPL support more Intel
>>>>> CPUs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please select IOSF_MBI on Atom SoCs.
>>>>>
>>> Unlike Quark, I don't think we want to or do differentiate Atom from
>>> other x86 at compile time. IOSF driver can be compiled as a module
>>> also, therefore RAPL driver needs this explicit dependency at
>>> compile time.
>> As commit had exported iosf_mbi to let user use it.
>>
>> commit aa8e4f22ab7773352ba3895597189b8097f2c307
>> Author: David E. Box <david.e.box@linux.intel.com>
>> Date:   Wed Aug 27 14:40:39 2014 -0700
>>
>>       x86/iosf: Add Kconfig prompt for IOSF_MBI selection
>>
>>
>> While selecting IOSF_MBI is preferred, it does mean carrying extra
>> code on non-SoC architectures.
>>
>> We can NOT force user to build in iosf_mbi if they want use RAPL on
>> haswell/broadwell/skylake.
>> And RAPL can be compiled and worked well on haswell/broadwell/skylake
>> without IOSF_MBI.
>> RAPL is really NOT depended on IOSF_MBI.
>>
> True for haswell/broadwell/skylake platforms. But if we want binary
> compatibility for Atom and Core, I can' see how simply removing the
> dependency would work, unless we have runtime detection of IOSF.
If you want use iosf_mbi on atom, please select it on generic x86 config.
But not force it depend on another feature that not related on it with 
other boards.
I don't care how iosf_mbi is added to kernel config, but why should I be 
forced to add it if I want use RAPL?
It doesn't make any sense.

Pengyu

>
>> Pengyu
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Pengyu Ma <pengyu.ma@windriver.com>
>>>> Jacob?
>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    drivers/powercap/Kconfig | 2 +-
>>>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/powercap/Kconfig b/drivers/powercap/Kconfig
>>>>> index 85727ef..a7c81b5 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/powercap/Kconfig
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/powercap/Kconfig
>>>>> @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ if POWERCAP
>>>>>    # Client driver configurations go here.
>>>>>    config INTEL_RAPL
>>>>>    	tristate "Intel RAPL Support"
>>>>> -	depends on X86 && IOSF_MBI
>>>>> +	depends on X86
>>>>>    	default n
>>>>>    	---help---
>>>>>    	  This enables support for the Intel Running Average
>>>>> Power Limit (RAPL)
>>>>>
>>> [Jacob Pan]
> [Jacob Pan]


  reply	other threads:[~2015-09-22  3:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-09-17  7:31 [PATCH] powercap / RAPL : remove dependency on iosf_mbi Pengyu Ma
2015-09-18  0:09 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-18 15:43   ` Jacob Pan
2015-09-21  3:48     ` Pengyu Ma
2015-09-21 21:36       ` Jacob Pan
2015-09-22  3:11         ` Pengyu Ma [this message]
2015-09-22 17:01           ` Jacob Pan
2015-09-24 10:03             ` Pengyu Ma
2015-09-24 15:09               ` Austin S Hemmelgarn
2015-09-24 16:33               ` Jacob Pan
2015-09-26  3:42                 ` Pengyu Ma
2015-09-28 16:13                   ` Jacob Pan
2015-09-22 13:41         ` Austin S Hemmelgarn
2015-09-22 15:57           ` Jacob Pan
2015-09-22 17:00             ` Austin S Hemmelgarn

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=5600C6E8.50602@windriver.com \
    --to=pengyu.ma@windriver.com \
    --cc=jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    /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.