2023-09-25 22:50:41

by srinivas pandruvada

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] Minor SST optimizations

Contains some minor changes to use SST for non dynamic use cases
for display purpose and remove hardcoded size for map.

Srinivas Pandruvada (3):
platform/x86: ISST: Use fuse enabled mask instead of allowed levels
platform/x86: ISST: Allow level 0 to be not present
platform/x86: intel_speed_select_if: Remove hardcoded map size

drivers/platform/x86/intel/speed_select_if/isst_if_mmio.c | 7 +++++--
.../platform/x86/intel/speed_select_if/isst_tpmi_core.c | 5 +----
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

--
2.41.0


2023-09-26 01:22:39

by srinivas pandruvada

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] platform/x86: ISST: Use fuse enabled mask instead of allowed levels

Allowed level mask is a mask of levels, which are currently allowed
to dynamically switch. But even dynamic switching is not allowed,
user should be able to check all parameters for selection via BIOS.

So when passing the level mask for display to user space, use fuse
enabled mask, which has all levels.

Signed-off-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <[email protected]>
---
drivers/platform/x86/intel/speed_select_if/isst_tpmi_core.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/speed_select_if/isst_tpmi_core.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/speed_select_if/isst_tpmi_core.c
index 37f17e229419..48465636aadb 100644
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/speed_select_if/isst_tpmi_core.c
+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/speed_select_if/isst_tpmi_core.c
@@ -712,7 +712,7 @@ static int isst_if_get_perf_level(void __user *argp)
return -EINVAL;

perf_level.max_level = power_domain_info->max_level;
- perf_level.level_mask = power_domain_info->pp_header.allowed_level_mask;
+ perf_level.level_mask = power_domain_info->pp_header.level_en_mask;
perf_level.feature_rev = power_domain_info->pp_header.feature_rev;
_read_pp_info("current_level", perf_level.current_level, SST_PP_STATUS_OFFSET,
SST_PP_LEVEL_START, SST_PP_LEVEL_WIDTH, SST_MUL_FACTOR_NONE)
--
2.41.0

2023-09-29 19:49:29

by Ilpo Järvinen

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] platform/x86: ISST: Use fuse enabled mask instead of allowed levels

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:

> Allowed level mask is a mask of levels, which are currently allowed
> to dynamically switch. But even dynamic switching is not allowed,

even if ?

> user should be able to check all parameters for selection via BIOS.

I think you're lacking a negation in the above paragraph because it sounds
like there's an internal contradiction in it. Can you please take a look.

--
i.


> So when passing the level mask for display to user space, use fuse
> enabled mask, which has all levels.
>
> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/platform/x86/intel/speed_select_if/isst_tpmi_core.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/speed_select_if/isst_tpmi_core.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/speed_select_if/isst_tpmi_core.c
> index 37f17e229419..48465636aadb 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/speed_select_if/isst_tpmi_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/speed_select_if/isst_tpmi_core.c
> @@ -712,7 +712,7 @@ static int isst_if_get_perf_level(void __user *argp)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> perf_level.max_level = power_domain_info->max_level;
> - perf_level.level_mask = power_domain_info->pp_header.allowed_level_mask;
> + perf_level.level_mask = power_domain_info->pp_header.level_en_mask;
> perf_level.feature_rev = power_domain_info->pp_header.feature_rev;
> _read_pp_info("current_level", perf_level.current_level, SST_PP_STATUS_OFFSET,
> SST_PP_LEVEL_START, SST_PP_LEVEL_WIDTH, SST_MUL_FACTOR_NONE)
>

2023-09-30 16:25:59

by srinivas pandruvada

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] platform/x86: ISST: Use fuse enabled mask instead of allowed levels

On Fri, 2023-09-29 at 15:14 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2023, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
>
> > Allowed level mask is a mask of levels, which are currently allowed
> > to dynamically switch. But even dynamic switching is not allowed,
>
> even if ?
OK

>
> > user should be able to check all parameters for selection via BIOS.
>
> I think you're lacking a negation in the above paragraph because it
> sounds
> like there's an internal contradiction in it. Can you please take a
> look.

I can try to improve.

>