On 16/04/2018 14:31, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 02:10:30PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 16/04/2018 12:10, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> On 16-04-18, 12:03, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> On 16/04/2018 11:50, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>>>> On 16-04-18, 11:45, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>>>> Can you elaborate a bit ? I'm not sure to get the point.
>>>>> Sure. With your current code on Hikey960 (big/LITTLE), you end up
>>>>> creating two cooling devices, one for the big cluster and one for
>>>>> small cluster. Which is the right thing to do, as we also have two
>>>>> cpufreq cooling devices.
>>>>> But with the change Sudeep is referring to, the helper you used to get
>>>>> cluster id will return 0 (SoC id) for all the 8 CPUs. So your code
>>>>> will end up creating a single cpuidle cooling device for all the CPUs.
>>>>> Which would be wrong.
>>>> Is the semantic of topology_physical_package_id changing ?
>>> That's what I understood from his email.
>>>> I don't
>>>> understand the change Sudeep is referring to.
>> Actually there is no impact with the change Sudeep is referring to. It
>> is for ACPI, we are DT based. Confirmed with Jeremy.
> No, it will change for DT. The aim is to be consistent irrespective of
> h/w or f/w description(i.e ADCPI or DT)

What will happen with the code using topology_physical_package_id ?

drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c:       int id =

drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c:               if
(topology_physical_package_id(i) == id)

drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c:               if
(topology_physical_package_id(i) ==



drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c:       return

drivers/crypto/qat/qat_common/adf_common_drv.h: return

drivers/crypto/virtio/virtio_crypto_common.h:   node =

kernel/events/core.c:           event_pkg =

kernel/events/core.c:           local_pkg =

 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

Reply via email to