Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] Documentation: EM: Describe new registration method using DT

[Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>]

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.