Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Feb 2022 09:39:52 +0000 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] Documentation: EM: Describe new registration method using DT | From | Lukasz Luba <> |
| |
On 2/24/22 09:37, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 24-02-22, 09:25, Lukasz Luba wrote: >> Our partners had a lot of issues with EM+EAS, because they were not >> aware of the internals of EM and limitations. >> >> We've started to name two types of EM: 'advanced' and 'simple'. >> The 'simple' is the one which causes issues. Now when we contact with >> partners we ask if they use 'simple' EM and see some issues in EAS. >> This is a needed clarification and naming convention that we use. >> >> Here the paragraph name is stressing the fact explicitly that >> from today we have the option to provide real power measurements using >> DT and it will be the 'advanced' EM. > > I understand the background now, and since I am part of the same > community I can appreciate that. But being a maintainer, I have to say > that when we look at something from Upstream's point of view, we may > have to neglect/ignore the terminology used in downstream.
I understand your upstream point of view.
> > From what I can see, there is no advancement here, as of now. This is > a very small change where we are getting pre-evaluated power values > from DT, instead of calculating them at runtime. The data may be more > correct, but the EM doesn't get advanced because of that. And so using > such terminology is only going to harm further. If EM gets a > "advanced" algorithm later on, which can improve things, then yes we > can call it advanced, but for now there is nothing. >
Fair enough, I'll drop this word from the paragraph name.
| |