lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] powercap / RAPL : remove dependency on iosf_mbi
    From
    Date


    On 09/22/2015 05:36 AM, Jacob Pan wrote:
    > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 11:48:14 +0800
    > Pengyu Ma <pengyu.ma@windriver.com> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> On 09/18/2015 11:43 PM, Jacob Pan wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 02:09:55 +0200
    >>> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Thursday, September 17, 2015 03:31:41 PM Pengyu Ma wrote:
    >>>>> iosf_mbi is supported on Quark, Braswell, Baytrail and some Atom
    >>>>> SoC, but RAPL is not limited to these SoC, it supports almost
    >>>>> Intel CPUs. Remove this dependece to make RAPL support more Intel
    >>>>> CPUs.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Please select IOSF_MBI on Atom SoCs.
    >>>>>
    >>> Unlike Quark, I don't think we want to or do differentiate Atom from
    >>> other x86 at compile time. IOSF driver can be compiled as a module
    >>> also, therefore RAPL driver needs this explicit dependency at
    >>> compile time.
    >> As commit had exported iosf_mbi to let user use it.
    >>
    >> commit aa8e4f22ab7773352ba3895597189b8097f2c307
    >> Author: David E. Box <david.e.box@linux.intel.com>
    >> Date: Wed Aug 27 14:40:39 2014 -0700
    >>
    >> x86/iosf: Add Kconfig prompt for IOSF_MBI selection
    >>
    >>
    >> While selecting IOSF_MBI is preferred, it does mean carrying extra
    >> code on non-SoC architectures.
    >>
    >> We can NOT force user to build in iosf_mbi if they want use RAPL on
    >> haswell/broadwell/skylake.
    >> And RAPL can be compiled and worked well on haswell/broadwell/skylake
    >> without IOSF_MBI.
    >> RAPL is really NOT depended on IOSF_MBI.
    >>
    > True for haswell/broadwell/skylake platforms. But if we want binary
    > compatibility for Atom and Core, I can' see how simply removing the
    > dependency would work, unless we have runtime detection of IOSF.
    If you want use iosf_mbi on atom, please select it on generic x86 config.
    But not force it depend on another feature that not related on it with
    other boards.
    I don't care how iosf_mbi is added to kernel config, but why should I be
    forced to add it if I want use RAPL?
    It doesn't make any sense.

    Pengyu

    >
    >> Pengyu
    >>>>> Signed-off-by: Pengyu Ma <pengyu.ma@windriver.com>
    >>>> Jacob?
    >>>>
    >>>>> ---
    >>>>> drivers/powercap/Kconfig | 2 +-
    >>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/powercap/Kconfig b/drivers/powercap/Kconfig
    >>>>> index 85727ef..a7c81b5 100644
    >>>>> --- a/drivers/powercap/Kconfig
    >>>>> +++ b/drivers/powercap/Kconfig
    >>>>> @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ if POWERCAP
    >>>>> # Client driver configurations go here.
    >>>>> config INTEL_RAPL
    >>>>> tristate "Intel RAPL Support"
    >>>>> - depends on X86 && IOSF_MBI
    >>>>> + depends on X86
    >>>>> default n
    >>>>> ---help---
    >>>>> This enables support for the Intel Running Average
    >>>>> Power Limit (RAPL)
    >>>>>
    >>> [Jacob Pan]
    > [Jacob Pan]



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2015-09-22 05:41    [W:4.659 / U:0.424 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site