Messages in this thread | | | From | Doug Anderson <> | Date | Mon, 2 Nov 2020 16:41:57 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Clarify abstract scale usage for power values in Energy Model, EAS and IPA |
| |
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 5:54 AM Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com> wrote: > > On Monday 02 Nov 2020 at 08:54:38 (+0000), Lukasz Luba wrote: > > Gentle ping to Quentin and Daniel for sharing opinion on this patch set. > > If you are OK, then I could use this as a base for next work. > > One or two small nits, but overall this LGTM. Thanks Lukasz. > > > As you probably know I am working also on 'sustainable power' estimation > > which could be used when there is no DT value but it comes from FW. > > That would meet requirement from Doug, when the DT cannot be used, > > but we have sustainable levels from FW [1]. > > Cool, and also, I'd be happy to hear from Doug if passing the sustained > power via sysfs is good enough for his use-case in the meantime?
It does sound like sysfs could be made to work for us, but it's definitely a workaround. If the normal way to set these values was through sysfs then it would be fine, but I think most people expect that these values are just setup properly by the kernel. That means anyone using our board with a different userspace (someone running upstream on it) would need to figure out what mechanism they were going to use to program them. There's very little advantage here compared to a downstream patch that just violates official upstream policy by putting something bogoWatts based in the device tree.
My current plan of record (which I don't love) is basically:
1. Before devices are in consumer's hands, accept bogoWatts numbers in our downstream kernel.
2. Once devices are in consumers hands, run the script I sent out to generate some numbers and post them upstream.
If, at some point, there's a better solution then I'll switch to it, but until then that seems workable even if it makes me grumpy.
-Doug
| |