Hi Ilpo, On Mon, 2024-08-12 at 14:16 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Wed, 31 Jul 2024, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote: > > > The scope of uncore control is per power domain in a package and > > die. > > A package-die can have multiple power domains on some processors. > > In this > > case package-die domain (root domain) aggregates all information > > from > > power domains in it. > > > > On some processors, CPUID enumerates the die number same as power > > domain > > ID. In this case there is one to one relationship between package- > > die and > > power domain ID. There is no use of aggregating information from > > all > > power domain IDs as the information will be duplicate and > > confusing. In > > this case do not create separate package-die domain. > > Hi Srinivas, > > I got confused by this changelog because its order is quite > illogical. > > First paragraph talks about case A. When you say "all information" > is "aggregated", I immediately make the assumption that the > aggregated > information is what is wanted because, well, you normally want "all > information" and nothing else is being told here. > > Second paragraph starts to talk about case B and then suddenly > switches to > talk what should have been done in case A (that aggregated > information is > useless/confusing). > Is this any better: " The scope of uncore control is per power domain in a package and die with TPMI. There are two types of processor configurations possible: 1. A compute die is not enumerated in CPUID. In this case there is only one die in a package. In this case there will be multiple power domains in a single die. 2. A power domain in a package is enumerated as a compute die in CPUID. So there is one to one relationship between a die and power domain. To allow die level controls, the current implementation creates a root domain and aggregates all information from power domains in it. This is well suited for configuration 1 above. But when newer processors use configuration 2 above, this will present redundant information, So no use of aggregating. In this case do not create separate root domain. " Thanks, Srinivas > So I think some reorganization of the sentences would be useful to > not > jump between cases mid-paragraph without any hints. > > (I hope my explanation is enough to highlight why it was hard to > follow). > > When I finally understood what the changelog was saying, I found out > the > code change is fine too but it first looked like it was doing exactly > the > opposite to my expectations/reasonale given in the changelog. >
