Re: [PATCH 4/4] cpu_cooling: Drop static-power related stuff

[Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 07:05:46PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 21/11/2017 19:00, Javi Merino wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 08:57:06AM -0800, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> >> As I said before, the minimal you guys (ARM and Linaro) can do is to at
> >> least upstream the Juno code! as a reference. Come on guys?  what is
> >> preventing you to upstream Juno model?
> > 
> > As Ionela pointed out earlier in the thread, the cpufreq driver for Juno
> > was not acceptable for mainline because it used platform specific code.
> > When it was converted to cpufreq-dt, the static power was left behind
> > because it can't be represented in device tree.  This is because there
> > isn't a function that works for every SoC, different process nodes
> > (among other things) will need different functions.  So it can't be just
> > a bunch of coefficients in DT, we need a function.  Hence the callback.
> 
> The DT could contain the coef and a compatible string for a specific
> polynomial computation callback. I imagine we should not have a lot of
> different equations, no ?
> 

Yeah, that would be another way of doing it. If there is no equation
that correlates all processes, then we need a vendor specific entry, or
a compatible string, as Daniel said.

> 
> 
> -- 
>  <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
>