From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32AFEC388F7 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 16:37:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E41862137B for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 16:37:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726648AbgKMQhP (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Nov 2020 11:37:15 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:41182 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726156AbgKMQhO (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Nov 2020 11:37:14 -0500 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9B5C1042; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 08:37:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.1.198.32]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8AB1B3F718; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 08:37:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 16:37:12 +0000 From: Ionela Voinescu To: Sudeep Holla Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, will@kernel.org, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] arm64: implement CPPC FFH support using AMUs Message-ID: <20201113163712.GA5058@arm.com> References: <20201106125334.21570-1-ionela.voinescu@arm.com> <20201106125334.21570-4-ionela.voinescu@arm.com> <20201113141658.v2oq47nzerx3abga@bogus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201113141658.v2oq47nzerx3abga@bogus> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Sudeep, On Friday 13 Nov 2020 at 14:16:58 (+0000), Sudeep Holla wrote: [..] > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c > > index b8cb16e3a2cc..7c9b6a0ecd6a 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c > > @@ -147,6 +147,9 @@ void update_freq_counters_refs(void) > > > > static inline bool freq_counters_valid(int cpu) > > { > > + if ((cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) || !cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cpu_present_mask)) > > + return false; > > + > > if (!cpu_has_amu_feat(cpu)) { > > pr_debug("CPU%d: counters are not supported.\n", cpu); > > return false; > > @@ -323,3 +326,64 @@ void topology_scale_freq_tick(void) > > this_cpu_write(arch_core_cycles_prev, core_cnt); > > this_cpu_write(arch_const_cycles_prev, const_cnt); > > } > > + > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_CPPC_LIB > > +#include > > Not sure what arm64 maintainers prefer, but this code has nothing to do > with topolopy strictly speaking. I wonder if we can put it in separate Yes, you are correct. I am/was wondering the same for all the counters/AMU related functions, but given they were only used for topology_scale_freq_tick() *until now*, it was okay to keep them in topology.c. But I might soon have at least one additional (to FIE and FFH) small usecase for them in the implementation of arch_freq_get_on_cpu(), so all these functions might be better off in a separate file as well. Side note: I don't think frequency invariance is strictly speaking related to topology either. Nether are other functions in the arch_topology driver. It's likely we got used to placing all arch function implementation in either the arch_topology driver or the /kernel/topology.c. > file conditionally compiled if CONFIG_ACPI_CPPC_LIB is enabled there > by eliminating #ifdef(main reason for raising this point). > I'm happy to split either one(FFH) or both(FFH and counters) in separate files. Given the above, let me know if/how you guys prefer this done. > Either way: > > Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla > Thank you for the reviews, Ionela. > -- > Regards, > Sudeep