Re: [PATCH RFC 2/5] ACPI / processor: always compile perflib if CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR
On 08/05/15 09:52, Hanjun Guo wrote: On 2015年05月07日 02:36, Ashwin Chaugule wrote: Hello, On 6 May 2015 at 10:31, Sudeep Holla wrote: Similar to the idle, thermal and throttling libraries, always compile the perflib if CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR is enabled. This not only makes perflib alligned with other libraries but also helps in some sanity testing of these ACPI methods even when a particular feature is not enabled in the kernel configuration. Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla --- drivers/acpi/Makefile| 2 +- include/acpi/processor.h | 29 - include/linux/cpufreq.h | 4 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Makefile b/drivers/acpi/Makefile index 8a063e276530..33aef9d8b260 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/Makefile +++ b/drivers/acpi/Makefile @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI_BGRT) += bgrt.o # processor has its own "processor." module_param namespace processor-y:= processor_driver.o processor_throttling.o processor-y+= processor_idle.o processor_thermal.o -processor-$(CONFIG_CPU_FREQ) += processor_perflib.o +processor-y+= processor_perflib.o I'd prefer that we create a separate kconfig option for this. (perhaps even default it to 'y'). This library is quite specific to a certain type of CPU performance management methods (includes _PSS and friends) which are superseded by CPPC. The OS is not expected to support both at runtime, so by keeping this a config option, we can then disable it at compile time when CPPC is enabled. We could couple I agree. CPPC and _PSS are different way of controlling CPU freq, and I think _PSS may not be used on ARM. While I agree having a separate config option is good, but I won't assume _PSS might not be used on ARM as I have seen patches posted on the list in past to use _PSS on ARM platform[1]. Regards, Sudeep [1] http://marc.info/?l=linaro-acpi=139745485418399=2 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH RFC 2/5] ACPI / processor: always compile perflib if CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR
On 2015年05月07日 02:36, Ashwin Chaugule wrote: Hello, On 6 May 2015 at 10:31, Sudeep Holla wrote: Similar to the idle, thermal and throttling libraries, always compile the perflib if CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR is enabled. This not only makes perflib alligned with other libraries but also helps in some sanity testing of these ACPI methods even when a particular feature is not enabled in the kernel configuration. Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla --- drivers/acpi/Makefile| 2 +- include/acpi/processor.h | 29 - include/linux/cpufreq.h | 4 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Makefile b/drivers/acpi/Makefile index 8a063e276530..33aef9d8b260 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/Makefile +++ b/drivers/acpi/Makefile @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI_BGRT) += bgrt.o # processor has its own "processor." module_param namespace processor-y:= processor_driver.o processor_throttling.o processor-y+= processor_idle.o processor_thermal.o -processor-$(CONFIG_CPU_FREQ) += processor_perflib.o +processor-y+= processor_perflib.o I'd prefer that we create a separate kconfig option for this. (perhaps even default it to 'y'). This library is quite specific to a certain type of CPU performance management methods (includes _PSS and friends) which are superseded by CPPC. The OS is not expected to support both at runtime, so by keeping this a config option, we can then disable it at compile time when CPPC is enabled. We could couple I agree. CPPC and _PSS are different way of controlling CPU freq, and I think _PSS may not be used on ARM. Thanks Hanjun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH RFC 2/5] ACPI / processor: always compile perflib if CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR
On 2015年05月07日 02:36, Ashwin Chaugule wrote: Hello, On 6 May 2015 at 10:31, Sudeep Holla sudeep.ho...@arm.com wrote: Similar to the idle, thermal and throttling libraries, always compile the perflib if CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR is enabled. This not only makes perflib alligned with other libraries but also helps in some sanity testing of these ACPI methods even when a particular feature is not enabled in the kernel configuration. Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla sudeep.ho...@arm.com --- drivers/acpi/Makefile| 2 +- include/acpi/processor.h | 29 - include/linux/cpufreq.h | 4 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Makefile b/drivers/acpi/Makefile index 8a063e276530..33aef9d8b260 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/Makefile +++ b/drivers/acpi/Makefile @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI_BGRT) += bgrt.o # processor has its own processor. module_param namespace processor-y:= processor_driver.o processor_throttling.o processor-y+= processor_idle.o processor_thermal.o -processor-$(CONFIG_CPU_FREQ) += processor_perflib.o +processor-y+= processor_perflib.o I'd prefer that we create a separate kconfig option for this. (perhaps even default it to 'y'). This library is quite specific to a certain type of CPU performance management methods (includes _PSS and friends) which are superseded by CPPC. The OS is not expected to support both at runtime, so by keeping this a config option, we can then disable it at compile time when CPPC is enabled. We could couple I agree. CPPC and _PSS are different way of controlling CPU freq, and I think _PSS may not be used on ARM. Thanks Hanjun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH RFC 2/5] ACPI / processor: always compile perflib if CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR
On 08/05/15 09:52, Hanjun Guo wrote: On 2015年05月07日 02:36, Ashwin Chaugule wrote: Hello, On 6 May 2015 at 10:31, Sudeep Holla sudeep.ho...@arm.com wrote: Similar to the idle, thermal and throttling libraries, always compile the perflib if CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR is enabled. This not only makes perflib alligned with other libraries but also helps in some sanity testing of these ACPI methods even when a particular feature is not enabled in the kernel configuration. Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla sudeep.ho...@arm.com --- drivers/acpi/Makefile| 2 +- include/acpi/processor.h | 29 - include/linux/cpufreq.h | 4 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Makefile b/drivers/acpi/Makefile index 8a063e276530..33aef9d8b260 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/Makefile +++ b/drivers/acpi/Makefile @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI_BGRT) += bgrt.o # processor has its own processor. module_param namespace processor-y:= processor_driver.o processor_throttling.o processor-y+= processor_idle.o processor_thermal.o -processor-$(CONFIG_CPU_FREQ) += processor_perflib.o +processor-y+= processor_perflib.o I'd prefer that we create a separate kconfig option for this. (perhaps even default it to 'y'). This library is quite specific to a certain type of CPU performance management methods (includes _PSS and friends) which are superseded by CPPC. The OS is not expected to support both at runtime, so by keeping this a config option, we can then disable it at compile time when CPPC is enabled. We could couple I agree. CPPC and _PSS are different way of controlling CPU freq, and I think _PSS may not be used on ARM. While I agree having a separate config option is good, but I won't assume _PSS might not be used on ARM as I have seen patches posted on the list in past to use _PSS on ARM platform[1]. Regards, Sudeep [1] http://marc.info/?l=linaro-acpim=139745485418399w=2 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH RFC 2/5] ACPI / processor: always compile perflib if CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR
Hello, On 6 May 2015 at 10:31, Sudeep Holla wrote: > Similar to the idle, thermal and throttling libraries, always compile > the perflib if CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR is enabled. This not only makes > perflib alligned with other libraries but also helps in some sanity > testing of these ACPI methods even when a particular feature is not > enabled in the kernel configuration. > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla > --- > drivers/acpi/Makefile| 2 +- > include/acpi/processor.h | 29 - > include/linux/cpufreq.h | 4 > 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Makefile b/drivers/acpi/Makefile > index 8a063e276530..33aef9d8b260 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/Makefile > +++ b/drivers/acpi/Makefile > @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI_BGRT) += bgrt.o > # processor has its own "processor." module_param namespace > processor-y:= processor_driver.o processor_throttling.o > processor-y+= processor_idle.o processor_thermal.o > -processor-$(CONFIG_CPU_FREQ) += processor_perflib.o > +processor-y+= processor_perflib.o I'd prefer that we create a separate kconfig option for this. (perhaps even default it to 'y'). This library is quite specific to a certain type of CPU performance management methods (includes _PSS and friends) which are superseded by CPPC. The OS is not expected to support both at runtime, so by keeping this a config option, we can then disable it at compile time when CPPC is enabled. We could couple processor_throttling, thermal and perflib under this config option (CONFIG_PSS ?) since they're all under the same CPU performance management umbrella. Thoughts? Regards, Ashwin. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH RFC 2/5] ACPI / processor: always compile perflib if CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR
Similar to the idle, thermal and throttling libraries, always compile
the perflib if CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR is enabled. This not only makes
perflib alligned with other libraries but also helps in some sanity
testing of these ACPI methods even when a particular feature is not
enabled in the kernel configuration.
Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla
---
drivers/acpi/Makefile| 2 +-
include/acpi/processor.h | 29 -
include/linux/cpufreq.h | 4
3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Makefile b/drivers/acpi/Makefile
index 8a063e276530..33aef9d8b260 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/acpi/Makefile
@@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI_BGRT) += bgrt.o
# processor has its own "processor." module_param namespace
processor-y:= processor_driver.o processor_throttling.o
processor-y+= processor_idle.o processor_thermal.o
-processor-$(CONFIG_CPU_FREQ) += processor_perflib.o
+processor-y+= processor_perflib.o
obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR_AGGREGATOR) += acpi_pad.o
diff --git a/include/acpi/processor.h b/include/acpi/processor.h
index 4188a4d3b597..42a7ca744ff1 100644
--- a/include/acpi/processor.h
+++ b/include/acpi/processor.h
@@ -275,39 +275,10 @@ static inline void acpi_processor_ffh_cstate_enter(struct
acpi_processor_cx
/* in processor_perflib.c */
-#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ
void acpi_processor_ppc_init(void);
void acpi_processor_ppc_exit(void);
int acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed(struct acpi_processor *pr, int event_flag);
extern int acpi_processor_get_bios_limit(int cpu, unsigned int *limit);
-#else
-static inline void acpi_processor_ppc_init(void)
-{
- return;
-}
-static inline void acpi_processor_ppc_exit(void)
-{
- return;
-}
-static inline int acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed(struct acpi_processor *pr,
- int event_flag)
-{
- static unsigned int printout = 1;
- if (printout) {
- printk(KERN_WARNING
- "Warning: Processor Platform Limit event detected, but
not handled.\n");
- printk(KERN_WARNING
- "Consider compiling CPUfreq support into your
kernel.\n");
- printout = 0;
- }
- return 0;
-}
-static inline int acpi_processor_get_bios_limit(int cpu, unsigned int *limit)
-{
- return -ENODEV;
-}
-
-#endif /* CONFIG_CPU_FREQ */
/* in processor_core.c */
phys_cpuid_t acpi_get_phys_id(acpi_handle, int type, u32 acpi_id);
diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
index 2ee4888c1f47..ee91b295350b 100644
--- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h
+++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
@@ -171,6 +171,10 @@ static inline unsigned int cpufreq_quick_get_max(unsigned
int cpu)
{
return 0;
}
+static inline int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu)
+{
+ return -ENODEV;
+}
static inline void disable_cpufreq(void) { }
#endif
--
1.9.1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH RFC 2/5] ACPI / processor: always compile perflib if CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR
Similar to the idle, thermal and throttling libraries, always compile
the perflib if CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR is enabled. This not only makes
perflib alligned with other libraries but also helps in some sanity
testing of these ACPI methods even when a particular feature is not
enabled in the kernel configuration.
Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla sudeep.ho...@arm.com
---
drivers/acpi/Makefile| 2 +-
include/acpi/processor.h | 29 -
include/linux/cpufreq.h | 4
3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Makefile b/drivers/acpi/Makefile
index 8a063e276530..33aef9d8b260 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/acpi/Makefile
@@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI_BGRT) += bgrt.o
# processor has its own processor. module_param namespace
processor-y:= processor_driver.o processor_throttling.o
processor-y+= processor_idle.o processor_thermal.o
-processor-$(CONFIG_CPU_FREQ) += processor_perflib.o
+processor-y+= processor_perflib.o
obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR_AGGREGATOR) += acpi_pad.o
diff --git a/include/acpi/processor.h b/include/acpi/processor.h
index 4188a4d3b597..42a7ca744ff1 100644
--- a/include/acpi/processor.h
+++ b/include/acpi/processor.h
@@ -275,39 +275,10 @@ static inline void acpi_processor_ffh_cstate_enter(struct
acpi_processor_cx
/* in processor_perflib.c */
-#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ
void acpi_processor_ppc_init(void);
void acpi_processor_ppc_exit(void);
int acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed(struct acpi_processor *pr, int event_flag);
extern int acpi_processor_get_bios_limit(int cpu, unsigned int *limit);
-#else
-static inline void acpi_processor_ppc_init(void)
-{
- return;
-}
-static inline void acpi_processor_ppc_exit(void)
-{
- return;
-}
-static inline int acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed(struct acpi_processor *pr,
- int event_flag)
-{
- static unsigned int printout = 1;
- if (printout) {
- printk(KERN_WARNING
- Warning: Processor Platform Limit event detected, but
not handled.\n);
- printk(KERN_WARNING
- Consider compiling CPUfreq support into your
kernel.\n);
- printout = 0;
- }
- return 0;
-}
-static inline int acpi_processor_get_bios_limit(int cpu, unsigned int *limit)
-{
- return -ENODEV;
-}
-
-#endif /* CONFIG_CPU_FREQ */
/* in processor_core.c */
phys_cpuid_t acpi_get_phys_id(acpi_handle, int type, u32 acpi_id);
diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
index 2ee4888c1f47..ee91b295350b 100644
--- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h
+++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
@@ -171,6 +171,10 @@ static inline unsigned int cpufreq_quick_get_max(unsigned
int cpu)
{
return 0;
}
+static inline int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu)
+{
+ return -ENODEV;
+}
static inline void disable_cpufreq(void) { }
#endif
--
1.9.1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH RFC 2/5] ACPI / processor: always compile perflib if CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR
Hello, On 6 May 2015 at 10:31, Sudeep Holla sudeep.ho...@arm.com wrote: Similar to the idle, thermal and throttling libraries, always compile the perflib if CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR is enabled. This not only makes perflib alligned with other libraries but also helps in some sanity testing of these ACPI methods even when a particular feature is not enabled in the kernel configuration. Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla sudeep.ho...@arm.com --- drivers/acpi/Makefile| 2 +- include/acpi/processor.h | 29 - include/linux/cpufreq.h | 4 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Makefile b/drivers/acpi/Makefile index 8a063e276530..33aef9d8b260 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/Makefile +++ b/drivers/acpi/Makefile @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI_BGRT) += bgrt.o # processor has its own processor. module_param namespace processor-y:= processor_driver.o processor_throttling.o processor-y+= processor_idle.o processor_thermal.o -processor-$(CONFIG_CPU_FREQ) += processor_perflib.o +processor-y+= processor_perflib.o I'd prefer that we create a separate kconfig option for this. (perhaps even default it to 'y'). This library is quite specific to a certain type of CPU performance management methods (includes _PSS and friends) which are superseded by CPPC. The OS is not expected to support both at runtime, so by keeping this a config option, we can then disable it at compile time when CPPC is enabled. We could couple processor_throttling, thermal and perflib under this config option (CONFIG_PSS ?) since they're all under the same CPU performance management umbrella. Thoughts? Regards, Ashwin. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
