On Mon, 12 Aug 2024, srinivas pandruvada wrote: > 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. So there are multiple dies in a package and 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. > " Yes, it is now clearer. A minor suggestion above to better map with the code (explicitly stating the condition that matches to the check done by the code). -- i.
