From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dietmar Eggemann Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 2/2] base/drivers/arch_topology: Default dmips-mhz if they are not set in DT Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 14:46:09 +0100 Message-ID: <2b050e93-f734-f2f3-ac67-a30d37bf1950@arm.com> References: <1543325060-1599-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <1543325060-1599-2-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1543325060-1599-2-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Content-Language: en-GB Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Lezcano , rjw@rjwysocki.net Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, Chris Redpath , Quentin Perret , Amit Kucheria , Nicolas Dechesne , Niklas Cassel , Rob Herring , Quentin Perret , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Li Yang , Olof Johansson , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , Russell King List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Daniel, +cc: Russell King On 11/27/18 2:24 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > In the case of asymmetric SoC with the same micro-architecture, we > have a group of CPUs with smaller OPPs than the other group. One > example is the 96boards dragonboard 820c. There is no dmips/MHz > difference between both groups, so no need to specify the values in > the DT. Unfortunately, without these defined, there is no scaling > capacity computation triggered, so we need to write > 'capacity-dmips-mhz' for each CPU with the same value in order to > force the scaled capacity computation. > > In order to fix this situation, allocate 'raw_capacity' so the pointer > is set and the init_cpu_capacity_callback() function can be called. > > This was tested on db820c: > - specified values in the DT (correct results) > - partial values defined in the DT (error + fallback to defaults) > - no specified values in the DT (correct results) > > correct results are: > cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpu_capacity > 758 > 758 > 1024 > 1024 > > ... respectively for CPU0, CPU1, CPU2 and CPU3. > > That reflects the capacity for the max frequencies 1593600 and 2150400. [...] I'm afraid that this change is incompatible with the still existing cpu_efficiency interface we have in Arm32 for A15/A7 systems like Arm TC2: In case you specify clock-frequency dt properties per cpu for such a system, the cpu_capacity values are determined via the cpu_efficiency code in arch/arm/kernel/topology.c. So on Arm TC2 with clock-frequency = <1000000000> [A15] and <800000000> [A7] you get: root@linaro-nano:~# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpu_capacity 606 1441 1441 606 606 With your patches on top (cpu_capacity functionality in drivers/base/arch_topology.c does not have to be switched on by specifying capacity-dmips-mhz dt properties anymore) we end up scaling by max frequency again: root@linaro-nano:~# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpu_capacity 358 1024 1024 358 358 I tried to remove the cpu_efficiency based API a year ago but Russell pointed out that the compatibility has to be maintained for longer: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20171024102718.16113-1-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com/ I assume that the capacity-dmips-mhz dt property is like a switch to turn this functionality on for big.Little and so called gold/silver platforms, which have cores with the same uArch but in frequency domains with different max frequency values. So what's wrong with specifying capacity-dmips-mhz = <1024> for all cores for those gold/silver platforms? I don't expect that there will be so many of them. And normal SMP platforms (w/o frequency domains w/o different max frequency values) don't have to execute this code. IMHO, at least we should remove the cpu_efficiency bits before we do this change. [...]