On 20 June 2012 03:15, Namhyung Kim <namhy...@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:28:54 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> Use cpu compatibility field and clock-frequency field of DT to
>> estimate the capacity of each core of the system and to update
>> the cpu_power field accordingly.
>> This patch enables to put more running tasks on big cores than
>> on LITTLE ones. But this patch doesn't ensure that long running
>> tasks will run on big cores and short ones on LITTLE cores.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
>> <vincent.guittot-qsej5fyqhm4dnm+yrof...@public.gmane.org>
>> ---
> [snip]
>> +static void __init parse_dt_topology(void)
>> +{
>> + struct cpu_efficiency *cpu_eff;
>> + struct device_node *cn = NULL;
>> + unsigned long min_capacity = (unsigned long)(-1);
>> + unsigned long max_capacity = 0;
>> + unsigned long capacity = 0;
>> + int alloc_size, cpu = 0;
>> +
>> + alloc_size = nr_cpu_ids * sizeof(struct cpu_capacity);
>> + cpu_capacity = (struct cpu_capacity *)kzalloc(alloc_size, GFP_NOWAIT);
>> +
>> + while ((cn = of_find_node_by_type(cn, "cpu"))) {
>> + const u32 *rate, *reg;
>> + char *compatible;
>> + int len;
>> +
>> + if (cpu >= num_possible_cpus())
>> + break;
>> +
>> + compatible = of_get_property(cn, "compatible", &len);
>
> Why is this line needed?
not needed is the final version, should have been removed.
>
>
>> +
>> + for (cpu_eff = table_efficiency; cpu_eff->compatible;
>> cpu_eff++)
>> + if (of_device_is_compatible(cn, cpu_eff->compatible))
>> + break;
>> +
>> + if (cpu_eff->compatible == NULL)
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + rate = of_get_property(cn, "clock-frequency", &len);
>> + if (!rate || len != 4) {
>> + pr_err("%s missing clock-frequency property\n",
>> + cn->full_name);
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> +
>> + reg = of_get_property(cn, "reg", &len);
>> + if (!reg || len != 4) {
>> + pr_err("%s missing reg property\n", cn->full_name);
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> +
>> + capacity = ((be32_to_cpup(rate)) >> 20)
>> + * cpu_eff->efficiency;
>
> Why did you break this line?
It was more than 80 chars large previously but no more the case.
I'm going to correct
Thanks
>
> Thanks,
> Namhyung
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linaro-dev mailing list
> linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
