From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_NEOMUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D538C04AB5 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 11:19:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B3B924B2F for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 11:19:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727974AbfFCLTQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jun 2019 07:19:16 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:49158 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726701AbfFCLTQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jun 2019 07:19:16 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 090C5A78; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 04:19:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from queper01-lin (queper01-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.195.48]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7A4CF3F5AF; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 04:19:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 12:19:11 +0100 From: Quentin Perret To: Daniel Lezcano Cc: edubezval@gmail.com, rui.zhang@intel.com, javi.merino@kernel.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, amit.kachhap@gmail.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, will.deacon@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, ionela.voinescu@arm.com, mka@chromium.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] thermal: cpu_cooling: Migrate to using the EM framework Message-ID: <20190603111909.ckrevvpkrhzecx6v@queper01-lin> References: <20190530092038.12020-1-quentin.perret@arm.com> <20190530092038.12020-4-quentin.perret@arm.com> <2d1d5cda-63c3-07a9-ae5f-abbc300ed1fc@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2d1d5cda-63c3-07a9-ae5f-abbc300ed1fc@linaro.org> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215 Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.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 > > Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret > > Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano Thanks for this one and the other one :-) Quentin