From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] thermal/drivers/cpu_cooling: Add the combo cpu cooling device Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 09:58:53 +0530 Message-ID: <20180206042853.GI28462@vireshk-i7> References: <1516721671-16360-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <1516721671-16360-9-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <20180202104259.GA28462@vireshk-i7> <8dadd854-25ac-68aa-aa9f-33ba76a137a4@linaro.org> <20180205041734.GD28462@vireshk-i7> <911804cd-2f1d-a1f7-61a2-6c8b95a88d6b@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <911804cd-2f1d-a1f7-61a2-6c8b95a88d6b@linaro.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Lezcano Cc: edubezval@gmail.com, kevin.wangtao@linaro.org, leo.yan@linaro.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, amit.kachhap@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Zhang Rui , Javi Merino , "open list:THERMAL" , daniel.thompson@linaro.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 05-02-18, 11:32, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 05/02/2018 05:17, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > Right, but I thought the cooling-maps can help us specify different cooling > > states for different cooling devices for the same trip point. Maybe my > > understanding of that is incorrect. Any inputs on this? I am still wondering if this can be done. > At the first glance, it sounds interesting but I'm afraid that raises > more corner-cases than it solves because we have to take into account > all the combinations: cpuidle=0 && cpufreq=1, cpuidle=1 && cpufreq=0, > cpuidle=1 && cpufreq=1 with dynamic code changes when the cpufreq driver > is loaded/unloaded. > > I'm not against this approach as well as merging all the cpu cooling > devices into a single one but that won't be trivial and will need > several iterations before reaching this level of features. > > IMO, we should keep the current approach (but handle the cpufreq > loading/unloading) and then iteratively merge all the cooling device > into a single one with policy change at runtime which will automatically > handle the cpufreq load/unload. Surely we can do one thing at a time if that's the way we choose to do it. -- viresh