Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] powercap / RAPL : remove dependency on iosf_mbi | From | Pengyu Ma <> | Date | Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:11:36 +0800 |
| |
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]
| |