Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Feb 2022 23:10:51 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] thermal: cooling: Check Energy Model type in cpufreq_cooling and devfreq_cooling | From | Daniel Lezcano <> |
| |
Hi Lukasz,
On 22/02/2022 19:31, Lukasz Luba wrote: > > > On 2/22/22 18:12, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> >> Hi Lukasz, >> >> I don't think it makes sense to remove the support of the energy model >> if the units are abstracts. >> >> IIUC, regarding your previous answer, we don't really know what will >> do the SoC vendor with these numbers and likely they will provide >> consistent abstract values which won't prevent a correct behavior. >> >> What would be the benefit of giving inconsistent abstract values which >> will be unusable except of giving a broken energy model? > > The power values in the EM which has abstract scale, would make sense to > EAS, but not for IPA or DTPM. Those platforms which want to enable EAS, > but don't need IPA, would register such '<a_good_name_here>' EM.
Sorry, but I don't understand why DTPM can not deal with abstract values?
>> Your proposed changes would be acceptable if the energy model has a >> broken flag IMO > > That is doable. I can add that flag, so we can call it 'artificial' EM > (when this new flag is set).
It is too soon IMO, I would like to see the numbers first so we can take an enlighten decision. Right now, it is unclear what the numbers will be.
> Let me craft the RFC patch with this new flag proposal then. > Do you agree? Can I also add you as 'Suggested-by'? > > Thank you for coming back to me with the comments.
-- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
| |