| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
domain
On multi-package systems, the Psys MSR is only valid for CPUs on
specific package (master package). The current code makes the
assumption that package 0 is the master package, but this is not
true on new platforms like SPR.
Fix the problem by emuerating the Psys RAPL domain for every
package, so CPUs in slave packages will read 0 for the Psys energy
counter and only CPUs in master packages can get a valid reading
and register the Psys RAPL domain.
The sysfs I/F for the Psys RAPL domain is not changed.
Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
[ rjw: Subject and changelog edits ]
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
Modern Intel Mobile platforms support power limit4 (PL4), which is
the SoC package level maximum power limit (in Watts). It can be used
to preemptively limits potential SoC power to prevent power spikes
from tripping the power adapter and battery over-current protection.
This patch enables this feature by exposing package level peak power
capping control to userspace via RAPL sysfs interface. With this,
application like DTPF can modify PL4 power limit, the similar way
of other package power limit (PL1).
As this feature is not tested on previous generations, here it is
enabled only for the platform that has been verified to work,
for safety concerns.
Signed-off-by: Sumeet Pawnikar <sumeet.r.pawnikar@intel.com>
Co-developed-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>
Tested-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
Fixes: 7ebf8eff63b4 ("intel_rapl: introduce struct rapl_if_private")
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
RAPL MSR interface supports 2 power limits for package domain, and 1 power
limit for other domains, while RAPL MMIO interface supports 2 power limits
for both package and dram domains.
And when 2 power limits are supported, the FW_LOCK bit is in bit 63 of the
register, instead of bit 31.
Remove the assumption that only pakcage domain supports 2 power limits.
And allow the RAPL interface driver to specify the number of power limits
supported, for every single RAPL domain it owns..
Reviewed-by: Pandruvada, Srinivas <srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com>
Tested-by: Pandruvada, Srinivas <srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
RAPL MMIO interface uses 64 bit registers, thus force use 64 bit register
for all the RAPL code.
Reviewed-by: Pandruvada, Srinivas <srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com>
Tested-by: Pandruvada, Srinivas <srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
Split intel_rapl.c to intel_rapl_common.c and intel_rapl_msr.c, where
intel_rapl_common.c contains the common code that can be used by both MSR
and MMIO interface.
intel_rapl_msr.c contains the implementation of RAPL MSR interface.
Reviewed-by: Pandruvada, Srinivas <srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com>
Tested-by: Pandruvada, Srinivas <srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
MSR and MMIO RAPL interfaces have different ways to access the registers,
thus in order to abstract the register access operations, two callbacks,
.read_raw()/.write_raw() are introduced, and they should be implemented by
MSR RAPL and MMIO RAPL interface driver respectly.
This patch implements them for the MSR I/F only.
Reviewed-by: Pandruvada, Srinivas <srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com>
Tested-by: Pandruvada, Srinivas <srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
MSR and MMIO RAPL interface have different sets of registers, thus the
RAPL register address should be obtained from interface specific
structure, i.e. struct rapl_if_private, instead.
Reviewed-by: Pandruvada, Srinivas <srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com>
Tested-by: Pandruvada, Srinivas <srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
Introduce a new structure, rapl_if_private, to save the private data
for different RAPL Interface.
Reviewed-by: Pandruvada, Srinivas <srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com>
Tested-by: Pandruvada, Srinivas <srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
Create a new header file for the common definitions that might be used
by different RAPL Interface.
Reviewed-by: Pandruvada, Srinivas <srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com>
Tested-by: Pandruvada, Srinivas <srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
