Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Power10 basic energy management | From | Pratik Sampat <> | Date | Mon, 13 Jul 2020 15:32:12 +0530 |
| |
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.
Thanks Pratik
| |