lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] thermal: cooling: Check Energy Model type in cpufreq_cooling and devfreq_cooling
From

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-02-22 23:11    [W:0.070 / U:0.524 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site