Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 21 Jul 2020 20:25:19 +0530
From:   Gautham R Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc:     benh@kernel.crashing.org, ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        mikey@neuling.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, paulus@samba.org,
        pratik.r.sampat@gmail.com, Pratik Sampat <psampat@linux.ibm.com>,
        svaidy@linux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] powerpc/powernv/idle: Rename
 pnv_first_spr_loss_level variable
Message-ID: <20200721145519.GA26845@in.ibm.com>
Reply-To: ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20200717185306.60607-1-psampat@linux.ibm.com>
 <20200717185306.60607-3-psampat@linux.ibm.com>
 <1595202681.bt4670u7q7.astroid@bobo.none>
 <81dcf34e-870d-b3a1-7876-a6a2f0b37d1f@linux.ibm.com>
 <1595341835.8ad8mjl9hm.astroid@bobo.none>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1595341835.8ad8mjl9hm.astroid@bobo.none>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 12:37:41AM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> Excerpts from Pratik Sampat's message of July 21, 2020 8:29 pm:
> > 
> > 
> > On 20/07/20 5:27 am, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> >> Excerpts from Pratik Rajesh Sampat's message of July 18, 2020 4:53 am:
> >>> Replace the variable name from using "pnv_first_spr_loss_level" to
> >>> "pnv_first_fullstate_loss_level".
> >>>
> >>> As pnv_first_spr_loss_level is supposed to be the earliest state that
> >>> has OPAL_PM_LOSE_FULL_CONTEXT set, however as shallow states too loose
> >>> SPR values, render an incorrect terminology.
> >> It also doesn't lose "full" state at this loss level though. From the
> >> architecture it could be called "hv state loss level", but in POWER10
> >> even that is not strictly true.
> >>
> > Right. Just discovered that deep stop states won't loose full state
> > P10 onwards.
> > Would it better if we rename it as "pnv_all_spr_loss_state" instead
> > so that it stays generic enough while being semantically coherent?
> 
> It doesn't lose all SPRs. It does physically, but for Linux it appears 
> at least timebase SPRs are retained and that's mostly how it's 
> documented.
> 
> Maybe there's no really good name for it, but we do call it "deep" stop 
> in other places, you could call it deep_spr_loss maybe. I don't mind too 
> much though, whatever Gautham is happy with.

Nick's suggestion is fine by me. We can call it deep_spr_loss_state.

> 
> Thanks,
> Nick

--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.