On Tue, 2024-08-13 at 10:51 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > 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. In case 2, yes. > > > > > 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). OK. Thanks, Srinivas >
