From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753504AbdIFLnh (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Sep 2017 07:43:37 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:49454 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752831AbdIFLnf (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Sep 2017 07:43:35 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm: topology: remove cpu_efficiency To: Vincent Guittot Cc: linux-kernel , LAK , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , linux-samsung-soc , linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, Russell King , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Kukjin Kim , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Juri Lelli References: <20170830144120.9312-1-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> <20170830144120.9312-2-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> From: Dietmar Eggemann Message-ID: <303d3f7b-5d64-e13a-c4f9-dd575958cafa@arm.com> Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 12:43:31 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Vincent, On 04/09/17 08:49, Vincent Guittot wrote: > Hi Dietmar, > > Removing cpu effificiency table looks good to me. Nevertheless, i have > some comments below for this patch. Thanks for the review! > On 30 August 2017 at 16:41, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: >> Remove the 'cpu_efficiency/clock-frequency dt property' based solution >> to set cpu capacity which was only working for Cortex-A15/A7 arm >> big.LITTLE systems. >> >> I.e. the 'capacity-dmips-mhz' based solution is now the only one. It is >> shared between arm and arm64 and works for every big.LITTLE system no >> matter which core types it consists of. >> >> Cc: Russell King >> Cc: Vincent Guittot >> Cc: Juri Lelli >> Signed-off-by: Dietmar Eggemann >> --- >> arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 113 ++------------------------------------------- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 110 deletions(-) [...] >> @@ -115,73 +70,13 @@ static void __init parse_dt_topology(void) >> of_node_put(cn); >> continue; > > AFAICT, this continue is now useless as it was there to skipe the cpu > table efficiency method You're right ... will remove it. [...] >> - if (cap_from_dt) >> - topology_normalize_cpu_scale(); > > Why have you moved the call to topology_normalize_cpu_scale() from > parse_dt_topology() to update_cpu_capacity() ? Didn't move it ? It's still called from parse_dt_topology(). > You should keep it in parse_dt_topology() as itis part of the dt > parsing sequence Yes, this should be the case. [...] >> -/* >> - * Look for a customed capacity of a CPU in the cpu_capacity table during the >> - * boot. The update of all CPUs is in O(n^2) for heteregeneous system but the >> - * function returns directly for SMP system. >> - */ >> -static void update_cpu_capacity(unsigned int cpu) >> -{ >> - if (!cpu_capacity(cpu) || cap_from_dt) >> - return; >> - >> - topology_set_cpu_scale(cpu, cpu_capacity(cpu) / middle_capacity); >> - >> - pr_info("CPU%u: update cpu_capacity %lu\n", >> - cpu, topology_get_cpu_scale(NULL, cpu)); >> + topology_normalize_cpu_scale(); >> } > > You can probably just removed update_cpu_capacity() I did remove update_cpu_capacity(). Maybe the patch layout is confusing? [...]