lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 2/2] ThunderX2: Add Cavium ThunderX2 SoC UNCORE PMU driver
Hi Mark,

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 4:25 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 12:16:13AM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 02:30:47PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> >> + *
>> >> + * L3 Tile and DMC channel selection is through SMC call
>> >> + * SMC call arguments,
>> >> + * x0 = THUNDERX2_SMC_CALL_ID (Vendor SMC call Id)
>> >> + * x1 = THUNDERX2_SMC_SET_CHANNEL (Id to set DMC/L3C channel)
>> >> + * x2 = Node id
>> >
>> > How do we map Linux node IDs to the firmware's view of node IDs?
>> >
>> > I don't believe the two are necessarily the same -- Linux's node IDs are
>> > a Linux-specific construct.
>>
>> both are same, it is numa node id from ACPI/firmware.
>
> I am very wary about assuming that the Linux nid will always be the same
> as the ACPI node id.
>
> For that to *potentially* be true, this driver should depend on
> CONFIG_NUMA, NUMA must not be disabled on the command line, etc, or the
> node id will always be NUMA_NO_NODE.

ok, i can check the node id which we get from ACPI helpers in probe.
if it is NUMA_NO_NODE, I will init first socket uncore only and nid
param to fw is always zero?

>
> I would be *much* happier if we had an explicit mapping somewhere to the
> ID the FW expects.
>
>> > It would be much nicer if we could pass something based on the MPIDR,
>> > which is a known HW construct, or if this implicitly affected the
>> > current node.
>>
>> IMO, node id is sufficient.
>
> I agree that *a* node ID is sufficient, I just don't think that we're
> guaranteed to have the specific node ID the FW wants.

for thunderx2 which is 2 socket only platform, pxm and nid should be
same(either 0 or 1)
however, i can send PXM id(node_to_pxm) to firmware to make it more sane.

>
>> > It would be vastly more sane for this to not be muxed at all. :/
>>
>> i am helpless due to crappy hw design!
>
> I'm certainly not blaming you for this! :)
>
> I hope the HW designers don't make the same mistake in future, though...
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.

thanks
Ganapat

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-21 14:35    [W:0.089 / U:1.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site