All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com>,
	Lingutla Chandrasekhar <clingutla@codeaurora.org>,
	dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
	will.deacon@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	morten.rasmussen@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	jeremy.linton@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] arch_topology: Make cpu_capacity sysfs node as ready-only
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 15:04:07 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190307150151.GA5778@e107155-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190307121400.cmgymfbphguvlaoo@queper01-lin>

On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 12:14:03PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Thursday 07 Mar 2019 at 10:57:50 (+0100), Juri Lelli wrote:
> > If people think it's best to simply make this RO, I won't be against it.
> > Just pointed out a conversation we recently had. Guess we could also
> > make it RW again (properly) in the future if somebody complains.
>
> Right, now is probably the time to give it a go before folks start
> depending on it. And if I am wrong (and that happens more often than I'd
> like unfortunately :-)) and there are users of that thing, then the
> revert should be trivial.
>

+1 on all the points above ;)(I may also be getting things wrong here
but I am not convinced that we can resolve the issue for all the ARM
vendor possible combinations we may have to address)

We should come up with some *magical* cpumask that we can use if we
want to retain this write capability. And only way I see we can do that
is using DT which in turn eliminates the need to have write capability
for this sysfs.

So I am going to ack the $subject patch for now.

--
Regards,
Sudeep

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
Cc: Lingutla Chandrasekhar <clingutla@codeaurora.org>,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, will.deacon@arm.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jeremy.linton@arm.com,
	morten.rasmussen@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] arch_topology: Make cpu_capacity sysfs node as ready-only
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 15:04:07 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190307150151.GA5778@e107155-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190307121400.cmgymfbphguvlaoo@queper01-lin>

On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 12:14:03PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Thursday 07 Mar 2019 at 10:57:50 (+0100), Juri Lelli wrote:
> > If people think it's best to simply make this RO, I won't be against it.
> > Just pointed out a conversation we recently had. Guess we could also
> > make it RW again (properly) in the future if somebody complains.
>
> Right, now is probably the time to give it a go before folks start
> depending on it. And if I am wrong (and that happens more often than I'd
> like unfortunately :-)) and there are users of that thing, then the
> revert should be trivial.
>

+1 on all the points above ;)(I may also be getting things wrong here
but I am not convinced that we can resolve the issue for all the ARM
vendor possible combinations we may have to address)

We should come up with some *magical* cpumask that we can use if we
want to retain this write capability. And only way I see we can do that
is using DT which in turn eliminates the need to have write capability
for this sysfs.

So I am going to ack the $subject patch for now.

--
Regards,
Sudeep

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2019-03-07 15:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-02-28 11:53 [PATCH] arch_topology: Update user supplied capacity to possible cpus in cluster Lingutla Chandrasekhar
2019-02-28 12:19 ` Sudeep Holla
2019-02-28 14:38   ` Chandra Sekhar Lingutla
2019-02-28 15:25     ` Sudeep Holla
2019-03-02 13:30       ` Chandra Sekhar Lingutla
2019-03-04 18:21         ` Sudeep Holla
2019-03-05  9:23           ` Quentin Perret
2019-03-05 11:13             ` Sudeep Holla
2019-03-05 11:29               ` Quentin Perret
2019-03-05 11:36                 ` Sudeep Holla
2019-03-05 15:53                   ` Chandra Sekhar Lingutla
2019-03-05 16:12                     ` Quentin Perret
2019-03-05 16:54                     ` Sudeep Holla
2019-03-06 15:22                       ` Morten Rasmussen
2019-03-06 15:27                         ` [PATCH v1] arch_topology: Make cpu_capacity sysfs node as ready-only Lingutla Chandrasekhar
2019-03-06 15:27                           ` Lingutla Chandrasekhar
2019-03-07  7:28                           ` Juri Lelli
2019-03-07  7:28                             ` Juri Lelli
2019-03-07  9:31                             ` Quentin Perret
2019-03-07  9:31                               ` Quentin Perret
2019-03-07  9:57                               ` Juri Lelli
2019-03-07  9:57                                 ` Juri Lelli
2019-03-07 12:14                                 ` Quentin Perret
2019-03-07 12:14                                   ` Quentin Perret
2019-03-07 15:04                                   ` Sudeep Holla [this message]
2019-03-07 15:04                                     ` Sudeep Holla
2019-03-07 15:19                           ` Sudeep Holla
2019-03-07 15:19                             ` Sudeep Holla
2019-03-08 11:45                           ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-03-08 11:45                             ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-03-08 12:38                             ` [PATCH v2] " Lingutla Chandrasekhar
2019-03-08 12:38                               ` Lingutla Chandrasekhar
2019-03-27 10:56                               ` Quentin Perret
2019-03-27 10:56                                 ` Quentin Perret
2019-03-06  9:48                 ` [PATCH] arch_topology: Update user supplied capacity to possible cpus in cluster Dietmar Eggemann

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20190307150151.GA5778@e107155-lin \
    --to=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=clingutla@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=jeremy.linton@arm.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
    --cc=quentin.perret@arm.com \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.