From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753215AbeDPKK0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Apr 2018 06:10:26 -0400 Received: from mail-pl0-f67.google.com ([209.85.160.67]:41130 "EHLO mail-pl0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752040AbeDPKKY (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Apr 2018 06:10:24 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4+sBKE013sBSGNcCOVTJr2Qul4VDh6v6uZPlMRpOIdvDxj1GdHHt22faJ+ncikT4Q1AkpLLHg== Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 15:40:21 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: Daniel Lezcano Cc: Sudeep Holla , edubezval@gmail.com, kevin.wangtao@linaro.org, leo.yan@linaro.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, javi.merino@kernel.org, rui.zhang@intel.com, daniel.thompson@linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Amit Daniel Kachhap Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] thermal/drivers/cpu_cooling: Introduce the cpu idle cooling driver Message-ID: <20180416101021.GD4244@vireshk-i7> References: <1522945005-7165-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <1522945005-7165-7-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <3f3b3b7a-3b74-aee2-2fac-f2759babe3f0@arm.com> <939f7943-feec-aaa2-3bd3-59a6618330c0@linaro.org> <20180416073729.GA4244@vireshk-i7> <0a3164f9-4738-e24e-6ed0-2c75024c304c@linaro.org> <20180416093747.GB4244@vireshk-i7> <4abf0d97-d2b8-46ab-3c05-4a11510ac3fe@linaro.org> <20180416095006.GC4244@vireshk-i7> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 16-04-18, 12:03, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 16/04/2018 11:50, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 16-04-18, 11:45, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >> Can you elaborate a bit ? I'm not sure to get the point. > > > > Sure. With your current code on Hikey960 (big/LITTLE), you end up > > creating two cooling devices, one for the big cluster and one for > > small cluster. Which is the right thing to do, as we also have two > > cpufreq cooling devices. > > > > But with the change Sudeep is referring to, the helper you used to get > > cluster id will return 0 (SoC id) for all the 8 CPUs. So your code > > will end up creating a single cpuidle cooling device for all the CPUs. > > Which would be wrong. > > Is the semantic of topology_physical_package_id changing ? That's what I understood from his email. > I don't > understand the change Sudeep is referring to. > > I saw this attempt: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9959977/ @Sudeep: Is using topology_cod_id() is okay in that case ? -- viresh