On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 01:04:19PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> Yes, you're right. I thought using the existing data structures would work, 
> but it
> seems I messed up the implementation.

Not only that - your idea wouldn't fly because the per-CPU stuff you
were using gets torn down when the CPU goes offline so you can't use
them on resume because they're not there yet.

> Banks 15 and 16 should have an address for block 1 also. Do you have PFEH
> enabled on your system? That would cause MISC0 to be RAZ so we won't
> get the MISC1 address. I'll try it myself also and let you know.

I check PFEH is enabled how?

> I think this good for now. We'll probably need to change it in the
> future, but maybe we can clean up all the thresholding blocks code and
> make it simpler when we do change it.

Ok.

> This hunk could go above the !block. Though maybe the macro is lighter than 
> the
> array lookup. It'll work either way, but I'm just thinking out loud.

Yeah, it doesn't matter in that case.

> Since we're caching the values during init, we can drop all the
> *_on_cpu() calls. What do you think?

Well, if they're all the same on all CPUs, sure. That's your call.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imend├Ârffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 
(AG N├╝rnberg)
-- 

Reply via email to