From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Juri Lelli Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 03/10] PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 11:36:13 +0200 Message-ID: <20180608093613.GD658@localhost.localdomain> References: <20180521142505.6522-1-quentin.perret@arm.com> <20180521142505.6522-4-quentin.perret@arm.com> <20180607144409.GB3311@localhost.localdomain> <20180607151954.GA3597@e108498-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <52b9575b-4c2a-01df-fadd-10ccf3146112@arm.com> <20180608082511.GE3597@e108498-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180608082511.GE3597@e108498-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Quentin Perret Cc: Dietmar Eggemann , peterz@infradead.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, chris.redpath@arm.com, patrick.bellasi@arm.com, valentin.schneider@arm.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, thara.gopinath@linaro.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, tkjos@google.com, joelaf@google.com, smuckle@google.com, adharmap@quicinc.com, skannan@quicinc.com, pkondeti@codeaurora.org, edubezval@gmail.com, srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com, currojerez@riseup.net, javi.merino@kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 08/06/18 09:25, Quentin Perret wrote: > Hi Dietmar, > > On Thursday 07 Jun 2018 at 17:55:32 (+0200), Dietmar Eggemann wrote: [...] > > IMHO, part of the problem why this might be harder to understand is the fact > > that the patches show the use of the 2. init call > > 'em_rescale_cpu_capacity()' but not the 1. one 'em_register_freq_domain()'. > > I guess that Quentin wanted to keep the set as small as possible. > > Yes, this is confusing. I'm now starting to think that patch 10/10 should > probably not be part of this patch-set, especially if I don't provide > the patches registering the freq domains from the CPUFreq drivers. And > it's the only "Arm-specific" patch in this arch-independent patch-set. > > So I think I'll drop patch 10/10 for v4 ... That part should be > discussed separately, with the rest of the Arm-specific changes. Mmm, I would actually vote to at least have one example showing how and where the em_register_freq_domain() is going to be used. I had to look at the repo you referenced since I think it's quite fundamental piece to understand the design, IMHO.