From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/6] sched: Introduce energy models of CPUs
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:03:25 +0200
Message-ID: <2e35ede9-0926-836b-4068-8d12b6296597@arm.com>
References: <20180406153607.17815-1-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
 <20180406153607.17815-3-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
 <20180410115457.GB4043@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180410115457.GB4043@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>, Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@linaro.org>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>, Chris Redpath <chris.redpath@arm.com>, Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>, Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>, Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org

On 04/10/2018 01:54 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 04:36:03PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Build the energy model of one CPU, and link it to all CPUs
>> +		 * in its frequency domain. This should be correct as long as
>> +		 * they share the same micro-architecture.
>> +		 */
> 
> Aside from the whole PM_OPP question; you should assert that assumption.
> Put an explicit check for the uarch in and FAIL the init if that isn't
> met.
> 
> I don't think it makes _ANY_ kind of sense to share a frequency domain
> across uarchs and we should be very clear we're not going to support
> anything like that.
> 
> I know DynamiQ strictly speaking allows that, but since it's insane, we
> should consider that a bug in DynamiQ.

Totally agree! We will add this assert. One open question of the current 
EAS design solved ;-)