lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 2/5] ACPI / processor_idle: Add support for Low Power Idle(LPI) states
Date


On 17/05/16 18:46, Prakash, Prashanth wrote:
> Hi Sudeep,
>
> On 5/11/2016 9:37 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> +
>> +static int acpi_processor_get_lpi_info(struct acpi_processor *pr)
>> +{
>> + int ret, i;
>> + struct acpi_lpi_states_array *info;
>> + struct acpi_device *d = NULL;
>> + acpi_handle handle = pr->handle, pr_ahandle;
>> + acpi_status status;
>> +
>> + if (!osc_pc_lpi_support_confirmed)
>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> +
>> + max_leaf_depth = 0;
>> + if (!acpi_has_method(handle, "_LPI"))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + flat_state_cnt = 0;
>> +
>> + while (ACPI_SUCCESS(status = acpi_get_parent(handle, &pr_ahandle))) {
>> + if (!acpi_has_method(handle, "_LPI"))
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + acpi_bus_get_device(handle, &d);
>> + if (!strcmp(acpi_device_hid(d), ACPI_PROCESSOR_CONTAINER_HID))
>> + break;
>> +
>> + max_leaf_depth++;
>> + handle = pr_ahandle;
>> + }
>> +
> In the above loop, we break when we find a device with HID ==
> ACPI_PROCESSOR_CONTAINER_HID. Shouldn't we continue to parse as long as the
> parent HID == ACPI_PROCESSOR_CONTAINER_HID? This is required to make sure we
> parse states in levels higher than cluster level in processor hierarchy.
>

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. With just clusters in _LPI on my dev
board, I missed it.

> Also, I think it might be safe to break out of the loop if we didn't find
> _LPI package, instead of continuing. Given the presence of LPI entry:
> "Enabled Parent State", I can't think of a non-ambiguous scenario where we
> might find LPI packages in state N and N+2, but not in N+1, as we will not
> be able to figure out which state in N enables which states in N+2.
> Thoughts?

Though I admit I haven't thought in detail on how to deal with the
asymmetric topology, but that was the reason why I continue instead of
breaking.

Excerpts from the spec: "... This example is symmetric but that is not a
requirement. For example, a system may contain a different number of
processors in different containers or an asymmetric hierarchy where one
side of the topology tree is deeper than another...."

--
Regards,
Sudeep

--
Regards,
Sudeep

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-05-18 20:01    [W:0.065 / U:0.328 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site