Re: [PATCH] powercap / RAPL : remove dependency on iosf_mbi

From: Austin S Hemmelgarn
Date: Tue Sep 22 2015 - 09:41:58 EST

On 2015-09-21 17:36, Jacob Pan wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 11:48:14 +0800
Pengyu Ma <pengyu.ma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On 09/18/2015 11:43 PM, Jacob Pan wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 02:09:55 +0200
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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.
So make RAPL select IOSF instead of depending on it, add something to the RAPL help text saying that IOSF is needed for it to work on SoC's, and make IOSF=y in the defconfig.

This way, people who just turn on RAPL support should get IOSF, whereas people like me who actually build custom kernels for each system we own aren't forced to include yet more code that is 100% useless for us.

It's also worth noting that most of the people who care about binary compatibility for a wide variety of chips in one kernel (read as 'distro maintainers') will be turning IOSF on anyway, because it's needed for other things on chips that have it to work right as well.

Pengyu
Signed-off-by: Pengyu Ma <pengyu.ma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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]
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature