Excerpts from Pratik Sampat's message of July 13, 2020 8:02 pm: > Thank you for your comments, > > On 13/07/20 10:53 am, Nicholas Piggin wrote: >> Excerpts from Pratik Rajesh Sampat's message of July 10, 2020 3:22 pm: >>> Changelog v1 --> v2: >>> 1. Save-restore DAWR and DAWRX unconditionally as they are lost in >>> shallow idle states too >>> 2. Rename pnv_first_spr_loss_level to pnv_first_fullstate_loss_level to >>> correct naming terminology >>> >>> Pratik Rajesh Sampat (3): >>> powerpc/powernv/idle: Exclude mfspr on HID1,4,5 on P9 and above >>> powerpc/powernv/idle: save-restore DAWR0,DAWRX0 for P10 >>> powerpc/powernv/idle: Rename pnv_first_spr_loss_level variable >>> >>> arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/idle.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++---------- >>> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >> These look okay to me, but the CPU_FTR_ARCH_300 test for >> pnv_power9_idle_init() is actually wrong, it should be a PVR test >> because idle is not completely architected (not even shallow stop >> states, unfortunately). >> >> It doesn't look like we support POWER10 idle correctly yet, and on older >> kernels it wouldn't work even if we fixed newer, so ideally the PVR >> check would be backported as a fix in the front of the series. >> >> Sadly, we have no OPAL idle driver yet. Hopefully we will before the >> next processor shows up :P >> >> Thanks, >> Nick > > So if I understand this correctly, in powernv/idle.c where we check for > CPU_FTR_ARCH_300, we should rather be making a pvr_version_is(PVR_POWER9) > check instead? > > Of course, the P10 PVR and its relevant checks will have to be added then too.
Yes I think so, unfortunately. Thanks, Nick
