Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] thermal: cpu_cooling: Migrate to using the EM framework

From: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org,
	amit.kachhap@gmail.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, will.deacon@arm.com,
	edubezval@gmail.com, mka@chromium.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	rui.zhang@intel.com, javi.merino@kernel.org,
	ionela.voinescu@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] thermal: cpu_cooling: Migrate to using the EM framework
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 12:19:11 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190603111909.ckrevvpkrhzecx6v@queper01-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2d1d5cda-63c3-07a9-ae5f-abbc300ed1fc@linaro.org>

On Saturday 01 Jun 2019 at 12:37:06 (+0200), Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 30/05/2019 11:20, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > The newly introduced Energy Model framework manages power cost tables in
> > a generic way. Moreover, it supports several types of models since the
> > tables can come from DT or firmware (through SCMI) for example. On the
> > other hand, the cpu_cooling subsystem manages its own power cost tables
> > using only DT data.
> > 
> > In order to avoid the duplication of data in the kernel, and in order to
> > enable IPA with EMs coming from more than just DT, remove the private
> > tables from cpu_cooling.c and migrate it to using the centralized EM
> > framework. Doing so should have no visible functional impact for
> > existing users of IPA since:
> > 
> >  - recent extenstions to the the PM_OPP infrastructure enable the
> >    registration of EMs in PM_EM using the DT property used by IPA;
> > 
> >  - the existing upstream cpufreq drivers marked with the
> >    'CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV' flag all use the aforementioned PM_OPP
> >    infrastructure, which means they all support PM_EM. The only two
> >    exceptions are qoriq-cpufreq which doesn't in fact use an EM and
> >    scmi-cpufreq which doesn't use DT for power costs.
> > 
> > For existing users of cpu_cooling, PM_EM tables will contain the exact
> > same power values that IPA used to compute on its own until now. The
> > only new dependency for them is to compile in CONFIG_ENERGY_MODEL.
> > 
> > The case where the thermal subsystem is used without an Energy Model
> > (cpufreq_cooling_ops) is handled by looking directly at CPUFreq's
> > frequency table which is already a dependency for cpu_cooling.c anyway.
> > Since the thermal framework expects the cooling states in a particular
> > order, bail out whenever the CPUFreq table is unsorted, since that is
> > fairly uncommon in general, and there are currently no users of
> > cpu_cooling for this use-case.
> > 
> > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>

Thanks for this one and the other one :-)

Quentin

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel