| Message ID | 1464727290-5400-3-git-send-email-jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 05/31/2016 01:41 PM, Jacob Pan wrote: > --- a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c > +++ b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c > @@ -1137,6 +1137,7 @@ static const struct x86_cpu_id rapl_ids[] __initconst = { > RAPL_CPU(0x57, rapl_defaults_hsw_server),/* Knights Landing */ > RAPL_CPU(0x8E, rapl_defaults_core),/* Kabylake */ > RAPL_CPU(0x9E, rapl_defaults_core),/* Kabylake */ > + RAPL_CPU(0x5F, rapl_defaults_core),/* Denverton micro server */ > {} > }; Not to derail this individual patch... but do we really want to continue open-coding CPU model/family combos all over arch/x86? For instance, arch/x86/events/intel/core.c has: > case 142: /* 14nm Kabylake Mobile */ > case 158: /* 14nm Kabylake Desktop */ > case 78: /* 14nm Skylake Mobile */ > case 94: /* 14nm Skylake Desktop */ > case 85: /* 14nm Skylake Server */ Which duplicates the two Kabylake family numbers from the RAPL_CPU() context above (just in decimal instead of hex). Should we just start sticking these things in a header like: #define X86_INTEL_FAMILY_KABYLAKE1 0x8E #define X86_INTEL_FAMILY_KABYLAKE2 0x9E #define X86_INTEL_FAMILY_DENVERTON 0x5F So we have this: RAPL_CPU(X86_INTEL_FAMILY_DENVERTON, rapl_defaults_core), instead of having to explain our magic number in a comment. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, 31 May 2016, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 05/31/2016 01:41 PM, Jacob Pan wrote: > > --- a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c > > +++ b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c > > @@ -1137,6 +1137,7 @@ static const struct x86_cpu_id rapl_ids[] __initconst = { > > RAPL_CPU(0x57, rapl_defaults_hsw_server),/* Knights Landing */ > > RAPL_CPU(0x8E, rapl_defaults_core),/* Kabylake */ > > RAPL_CPU(0x9E, rapl_defaults_core),/* Kabylake */ > > + RAPL_CPU(0x5F, rapl_defaults_core),/* Denverton micro server */ > > {} > > }; > > Not to derail this individual patch... but do we really want to continue > open-coding CPU model/family combos all over arch/x86? > > For instance, arch/x86/events/intel/core.c has: > > > case 142: /* 14nm Kabylake Mobile */ > > case 158: /* 14nm Kabylake Desktop */ > > case 78: /* 14nm Skylake Mobile */ > > case 94: /* 14nm Skylake Desktop */ > > case 85: /* 14nm Skylake Server */ > > Which duplicates the two Kabylake family numbers from the RAPL_CPU() > context above (just in decimal instead of hex). > > Should we just start sticking these things in a header like: > > #define X86_INTEL_FAMILY_KABYLAKE1 0x8E > #define X86_INTEL_FAMILY_KABYLAKE2 0x9E > #define X86_INTEL_FAMILY_DENVERTON 0x5F > > So we have this: > > RAPL_CPU(X86_INTEL_FAMILY_DENVERTON, rapl_defaults_core), > > instead of having to explain our magic number in a comment. Yes please. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 08:57:27 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > On Tue, 31 May 2016, Dave Hansen wrote: > > On 05/31/2016 01:41 PM, Jacob Pan wrote: > > > --- a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c > > > +++ b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c > > > @@ -1137,6 +1137,7 @@ static const struct x86_cpu_id rapl_ids[] > > > __initconst = { RAPL_CPU(0x57, rapl_defaults_hsw_server),/* > > > Knights Landing */ RAPL_CPU(0x8E, rapl_defaults_core),/* Kabylake > > > */ RAPL_CPU(0x9E, rapl_defaults_core),/* Kabylake */ > > > + RAPL_CPU(0x5F, rapl_defaults_core),/* Denverton micro > > > server */ {} > > > }; > > > > Not to derail this individual patch... but do we really want to > > continue open-coding CPU model/family combos all over arch/x86? > > > > For instance, arch/x86/events/intel/core.c has: > > > > > case 142: /* 14nm Kabylake Mobile */ > > > case 158: /* 14nm Kabylake Desktop */ > > > case 78: /* 14nm Skylake Mobile */ > > > case 94: /* 14nm Skylake Desktop */ > > > case 85: /* 14nm Skylake Server */ > > > > Which duplicates the two Kabylake family numbers from the RAPL_CPU() > > context above (just in decimal instead of hex). > > > > Should we just start sticking these things in a header like: > > > > #define X86_INTEL_FAMILY_KABYLAKE1 0x8E > > #define X86_INTEL_FAMILY_KABYLAKE2 0x9E > > #define X86_INTEL_FAMILY_DENVERTON 0x5F > > > > So we have this: > > > > RAPL_CPU(X86_INTEL_FAMILY_DENVERTON, rapl_defaults_core), > > > > instead of having to explain our magic number in a comment. > > Yes please. This open coding also applies to other x86 vendors. I can make change for Intel since in some case, there is not even a comment about what the model is. e.g. in amd_nb.h (boot_cpu_data.x86 == 0x15 && boot_cpu_data.x86_model < 0x10)) Should the model numbers be in arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c index d51a8d4..f0fc1a3 100644 --- a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c +++ b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c @@ -1137,6 +1137,7 @@ static const struct x86_cpu_id rapl_ids[] __initconst = { RAPL_CPU(0x57, rapl_defaults_hsw_server),/* Knights Landing */ RAPL_CPU(0x8E, rapl_defaults_core),/* Kabylake */ RAPL_CPU(0x9E, rapl_defaults_core),/* Kabylake */ + RAPL_CPU(0x5F, rapl_defaults_core),/* Denverton micro server */ {} }; MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(x86cpu, rapl_ids);
Denverton micro server is Atom based but RAPL interface is compatible with Core based CPUs. Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> --- drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)