On 12/17/24 16:16, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 03:46:24PM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote:
On 12/5/24 17:00, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 at 12:53, Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/14/24 18:02, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 09:43:53AM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote:
On 10/26/24 23:46, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 01:48:25PM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote:
On 10/7/24 23:27, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 11:40:22AM GMT, Sibi Sankar wrote:
+};
+
+struct map_param_msg {
+ u32 hw_type;
+ u32 mon_idx;
+ u32 nr_rows;
+ struct map_table tbl[MAX_MAP_ENTRIES];
+} __packed;
+
+struct node_msg {
+ u32 cpumask;
+ u32 hw_type;
+ u32 mon_type;
+ u32 mon_idx;
+ char mon_name[MAX_NAME_LEN];
+};
+
+struct scalar_param_msg {
+ u32 hw_type;
+ u32 mon_idx;
+ u32 val;
+};
+
+enum common_ev_idx {
+ INST_IDX,
+ CYC_IDX,
+ CONST_CYC_IDX,
+ FE_STALL_IDX,
+ BE_STALL_IDX,
+ NUM_COMMON_EVS
+};
+
+enum grp_ev_idx {
+ MISS_IDX,
+ WB_IDX,
+ ACC_IDX,
+ NUM_GRP_EVS
+};
+
+#define EV_CPU_CYCLES 0
+#define EV_INST_RETIRED 2
+#define EV_L2_D_RFILL 5
+
+struct ev_map_msg {
+ u32 num_evs;
+ u32 hw_type;
+ u32 cid[NUM_COMMON_EVS];
+};
+
+struct cpufreq_memfreq_map {
+ unsigned int cpufreq_mhz;
+ unsigned int memfreq_khz;
+};
+
+struct scmi_monitor_info {
+ struct cpufreq_memfreq_map *freq_map;
+ char mon_name[MAX_NAME_LEN];
+ u32 mon_idx;
+ u32 mon_type;
+ u32 ipm_ceil;
+ u32 mask;
+ u32 freq_map_len;
+};
+
+struct scmi_memory_info {
+ struct scmi_monitor_info *monitor[MAX_MONITOR_CNT];
+ u32 hw_type;
+ int monitor_cnt;
+ u32 min_freq;
+ u32 max_freq;
+};
+
+struct scmi_memlat_info {
+ struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph;
+ const struct qcom_generic_ext_ops *ops;
+ struct scmi_memory_info *memory[MAX_MEMORY_TYPES];
+ u32 cluster_info[NR_CPUS];
+ int memory_cnt;
+};
+
+static int populate_cluster_info(u32 *cluster_info)
+{
+ char name[MAX_NAME_LEN];
+ int i = 0;
+
+ struct device_node *cn __free(device_node) = of_find_node_by_path("/cpus");
+ if (!cn)
+ return -ENODEV;
+
+ struct device_node *map __free(device_node) = of_get_child_by_name(cn, "cpu-map");
+ if (!map)
+ return -ENODEV;
+
+ do {
+ snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "cluster%d", i);
+ struct device_node *c __free(device_node) = of_get_child_by_name(map, name);
+ if (!c)
+ break;
+
+ *(cluster_info + i) = of_get_child_count(c);
+ i++;
+ } while (1);
Can you use existing API from drivers/base/arch_topology.c? If not, can
it be extended to support your usecase?
ack. But I'm pretty sure it's going to take a while for reaching such
an agreement so I'll drop this feature during the next re-spin.
Why? What kind of API do you actually need? The arch_topology.c simply
exports a table of struct cpu_topology. Is it somehow different from
what you are parsing manually?
yup, we had to figure out the physical id of the cpu
since cpus can be disabled by the bootloader using
status = "failed" property and we have to pass this
onto the cpucp memlat algorithm.
Isn't it equal to the index in the cpu_topology table?
from what I see cpu_topology indexes remain unpopulated
for cpus that are disabled since get_cpu_for_node
ignores those?
Why do you need cpu_topology for disabled aka non-existing CPU devices?
sorry was out sick couldn't back earlier. We need the know
what cpus are disbled to pass on the correct mask of cpus
enabled to the SCP.
Yes. So isn't it enough to know only the enabled CPUs?
yes just knowing the physical index of the enabled cpus
should be enough.
