Re: [PATCH 4/4] base/drivers/topology: Default dmpis-mhz if they are not set in DT

On 22/11/2018 11:31, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 22-11-18, 11:29, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> Oh ... actually raw_capacity is not needed at all! > > It is required as another routine writes some values to it I believe :) Well actually it is accessed 'later' by topology_normalize_cpu_scale() by a call

Re: [PATCH 4/4] base/drivers/topology: Default dmpis-mhz if they are not set in DT

On 22/11/2018 11:31, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 22-11-18, 11:29, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> Oh ... actually raw_capacity is not needed at all! > > It is required as another routine writes some values to it I believe :) Well actually it is accessed 'later' by topology_normalize_cpu_scale() by a call

Re: [PATCH 4/4] base/drivers/topology: Default dmpis-mhz if they are not set in DT

On 22/11/2018 11:31, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 22-11-18, 11:29, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> Oh ... actually raw_capacity is not needed at all! > > It is required as another routine writes some values to it I believe :) Let's see if I can remove it. -- Linaro.org │ Open

Re: [PATCH 4/4] base/drivers/topology: Default dmpis-mhz if they are not set in DT

On 22/11/2018 11:31, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 22-11-18, 11:29, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> Oh ... actually raw_capacity is not needed at all! > > It is required as another routine writes some values to it I believe :) Let's see if I can remove it. -- Linaro.org │ Open

Re: [PATCH 4/4] base/drivers/topology: Default dmpis-mhz if they are not set in DT

On 22-11-18, 11:29, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > Oh ... actually raw_capacity is not needed at all! It is required as another routine writes some values to it I believe :) -- viresh

Re: [PATCH 4/4] base/drivers/topology: Default dmpis-mhz if they are not set in DT

On 22-11-18, 11:29, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > Oh ... actually raw_capacity is not needed at all! It is required as another routine writes some values to it I believe :) -- viresh

Re: [PATCH 4/4] base/drivers/topology: Default dmpis-mhz if they are not set in DT

On 22/11/2018 05:29, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 21-11-18, 23:12, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 30/10/2018 09:58, Viresh Kumar wrote: >>> s/dmpis/dmips/ in $subject >>> >>> On 29-10-18, 17:23, Daniel Lezcano wrote: In the case of assymetric SoC with the same micro-architecture, we >>> >>>

Re: [PATCH 4/4] base/drivers/topology: Default dmpis-mhz if they are not set in DT

On 22/11/2018 05:29, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 21-11-18, 23:12, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 30/10/2018 09:58, Viresh Kumar wrote: >>> s/dmpis/dmips/ in $subject >>> >>> On 29-10-18, 17:23, Daniel Lezcano wrote: In the case of assymetric SoC with the same micro-architecture, we >>> >>>

Re: [PATCH 4/4] base/drivers/topology: Default dmpis-mhz if they are not set in DT

On 21-11-18, 23:12, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 30/10/2018 09:58, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > s/dmpis/dmips/ in $subject > > > > On 29-10-18, 17:23, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >> In the case of assymetric SoC with the same micro-architecture, we > > > > asymmetric ? > > > >> have a

Re: [PATCH 4/4] base/drivers/topology: Default dmpis-mhz if they are not set in DT

On 21-11-18, 23:12, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 30/10/2018 09:58, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > s/dmpis/dmips/ in $subject > > > > On 29-10-18, 17:23, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >> In the case of assymetric SoC with the same micro-architecture, we > > > > asymmetric ? > > > >> have a

Re: [PATCH 4/4] base/drivers/topology: Default dmpis-mhz if they are not set in DT

On 30/10/2018 09:58, Viresh Kumar wrote: > s/dmpis/dmips/ in $subject > > On 29-10-18, 17:23, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> In the case of assymetric SoC with the same micro-architecture, we > > asymmetric ? > >> have a group of CPUs with smaller OPPs than the other group. One >>

Re: [PATCH 4/4] base/drivers/topology: Default dmpis-mhz if they are not set in DT

On 30/10/2018 09:58, Viresh Kumar wrote: > s/dmpis/dmips/ in $subject > > On 29-10-18, 17:23, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> In the case of assymetric SoC with the same micro-architecture, we > > asymmetric ? > >> have a group of CPUs with smaller OPPs than the other group. One >>

Re: [PATCH 4/4] base/drivers/topology: Default dmpis-mhz if they are not set in DT

s/dmpis/dmips/ in $subject On 29-10-18, 17:23, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > In the case of assymetric SoC with the same micro-architecture, we asymmetric ? > have a group of CPUs with smaller OPPs than the other group. One > example is the 96boards dragonboard 820c. There is no

Re: [PATCH 4/4] base/drivers/topology: Default dmpis-mhz if they are not set in DT

s/dmpis/dmips/ in $subject On 29-10-18, 17:23, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > In the case of assymetric SoC with the same micro-architecture, we asymmetric ? > have a group of CPUs with smaller OPPs than the other group. One > example is the 96boards dragonboard 820c. There is no

Re: [PATCH 4/4] base/drivers/topology: Default dmpis-mhz if they are not set in DT

On 30-10-18, 09:39, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE is the default value in this file. > > eg. > > DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, cpu_scale) = SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE > ... > pr_err("cpu_capacity: partial information: fallback to 1024 for all > CPUs\n"); > ... > > So I prefer to use

Re: [PATCH 4/4] base/drivers/topology: Default dmpis-mhz if they are not set in DT

On 30-10-18, 09:39, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE is the default value in this file. > > eg. > > DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, cpu_scale) = SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE > ... > pr_err("cpu_capacity: partial information: fallback to 1024 for all > CPUs\n"); > ... > > So I prefer to use

Re: [PATCH 4/4] base/drivers/topology: Default dmpis-mhz if they are not set in DT

On 30/10/2018 08:13, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 29-10-18, 17:23, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> In the case of assymetric SoC with the same micro-architecture, we >> have a group of CPUs with smaller OPPs than the other group. One >> example is the 96boards dragonboard 820c. There is no dmips/MHz >>

Re: [PATCH 4/4] base/drivers/topology: Default dmpis-mhz if they are not set in DT

On 30/10/2018 08:13, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 29-10-18, 17:23, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> In the case of assymetric SoC with the same micro-architecture, we >> have a group of CPUs with smaller OPPs than the other group. One >> example is the 96boards dragonboard 820c. There is no dmips/MHz >>

Re: [PATCH 4/4] base/drivers/topology: Default dmpis-mhz if they are not set in DT

On 29-10-18, 17:23, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > In the case of assymetric SoC with the same micro-architecture, we > have a group of CPUs with smaller OPPs than the other group. One > example is the 96boards dragonboard 820c. There is no dmips/MHz > difference between both groups, so no need to

Re: [PATCH 4/4] base/drivers/topology: Default dmpis-mhz if they are not set in DT

On 29-10-18, 17:23, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > In the case of assymetric SoC with the same micro-architecture, we > have a group of CPUs with smaller OPPs than the other group. One > example is the 96boards dragonboard 820c. There is no dmips/MHz > difference between both groups, so no need to

[PATCH 4/4] base/drivers/topology: Default dmpis-mhz if they are not set in DT

In the case of assymetric SoC with the same micro-architecture, we have a group of CPUs with smaller OPPs than the other group. One example is the 96boards dragonboard 820c. There is no dmips/MHz difference between both groups, so no need to specify the values in the DT. Unfortunately, without

[PATCH 4/4] base/drivers/topology: Default dmpis-mhz if they are not set in DT

In the case of assymetric SoC with the same micro-architecture, we have a group of CPUs with smaller OPPs than the other group. One example is the 96boards dragonboard 820c. There is no dmips/MHz difference between both groups, so no need to specify the values in the DT. Unfortunately, without