Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Power10 basic energy management | From | Pratik Sampat <> | Date | Mon, 13 Jul 2020 23:57:14 +0530 |
| |
On 13/07/20 10:20 pm, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > Excerpts from Pratik Sampat's message of July 13, 2020 8:02 pm: >> Thank you for your comments, >> >> On 13/07/20 10:53 am, Nicholas Piggin wrote: >>> Excerpts from Pratik Rajesh Sampat's message of July 10, 2020 3:22 pm: >>>> Changelog v1 --> v2: >>>> 1. Save-restore DAWR and DAWRX unconditionally as they are lost in >>>> shallow idle states too >>>> 2. Rename pnv_first_spr_loss_level to pnv_first_fullstate_loss_level to >>>> correct naming terminology >>>> >>>> Pratik Rajesh Sampat (3): >>>> powerpc/powernv/idle: Exclude mfspr on HID1,4,5 on P9 and above >>>> powerpc/powernv/idle: save-restore DAWR0,DAWRX0 for P10 >>>> powerpc/powernv/idle: Rename pnv_first_spr_loss_level variable >>>> >>>> arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/idle.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++---------- >>>> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >>> These look okay to me, but the CPU_FTR_ARCH_300 test for >>> pnv_power9_idle_init() is actually wrong, it should be a PVR test >>> because idle is not completely architected (not even shallow stop >>> states, unfortunately). >>> >>> It doesn't look like we support POWER10 idle correctly yet, and on older >>> kernels it wouldn't work even if we fixed newer, so ideally the PVR >>> check would be backported as a fix in the front of the series. >>> >>> Sadly, we have no OPAL idle driver yet. Hopefully we will before the >>> next processor shows up :P >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Nick >> So if I understand this correctly, in powernv/idle.c where we check for >> CPU_FTR_ARCH_300, we should rather be making a pvr_version_is(PVR_POWER9) >> check instead? >> >> Of course, the P10 PVR and its relevant checks will have to be added then too. > Yes I think so, unfortunately. > > Thanks, > Nick
Sure, I'll add these checks in.
Thanks, Pratik
| |