Re: [PATCH] powercap / RAPL : remove dependency on iosf_mbi

[Pengyu Ma <pengyu.ma@windriver.com>]

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.

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]