> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 16:05
> To: ilialin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mturquette@xxxxxxxxxxxx; sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx;
> robh@xxxxxxxxxx; mark.rutland@xxxxxxx; viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx;
> nm@xxxxxx; lgirdwood@xxxxxxxxx; broonie@xxxxxxxxxx;
> andy.gross@xxxxxxxxxx; david.brown@xxxxxxxxxx; catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx;
> will.deacon@xxxxxxx; rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-clk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx>; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-
> msm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rnayak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> amit.kucheria@xxxxxxxxxx; nicolas.dechesne@xxxxxxxxxx;
> celster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; tfinkel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Add Kryo CPU scaling driver
>
>
>
> On 21/05/18 13:57, ilialin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> [...]
>
> >>> +#include <linux/cpu.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/err.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/init.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/module.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/nvmem-consumer.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/of.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/pm_opp.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/soc/qcom/smem.h>
> >>> +
> >>> +#define MSM_ID_SMEM 137
> >>> +#define SILVER_LEAD 0
> >>> +#define GOLD_LEAD 2
> >>> +
> >>
> >> So I gather form other emails, that these are physical cpu number(not
> >> even unique identifier like MPIDR). Will this work on parts or
> >> platforms that need to boot in GOLD LEAD cpus.
> >
> > The driver is for Kryo CPU, which (and AFAIK all multicore MSMs)
> > always boots on the CPU0.
>
>
> That may be true and I am not that bothered about it. But assuming physical
> ordering from the logical cpu number is *incorrect* and will break if kernel
> decides to change the allocation algorithm. Kernel provides no guarantee on
> that, so you need to depend on some physical ID or may be DT to achieve
> what your want. But the current code as it stands is wrong.
Got your point. In fact CPUs are numbered 0-3 and ordered into 2 clusters in the DT:
cpus {
#address-cells = <2>;
#size-cells = <0>;
CPU0: cpu@0 {
...
reg = <0x0 0x0>;
...
};
CPU1: cpu@1 {
...
reg = <0x0 0x1>;
...
};
CPU2: cpu@100 {
...
reg = <0x0 0x100>;
...
};
CPU3: cpu@101 {
...
reg = <0x0 0x101>;
...
};
cpu-map {
cluster0 {
core0 {
cpu = <&CPU0>;
};
core1 {
cpu = <&CPU1>;
};
};
cluster1 {
core0 {
cpu = <&CPU2>;
};
core1 {
cpu = <&CPU3>;
};
};
};
};
As far, as I understand, they are probed in the same order. However, to be certain that the physical CPU is the one I intend to configure, I have to fetch the device structure pointer for the cpu-map -> clusterX -> core0 -> cpu path. Could you suggest a kernel API to do that?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
