From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (szxga02-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.188]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 448DA1A3171; Thu, 6 Feb 2025 13:16:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.188 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738847819; cv=none; b=U7joXSkNaYrnxn2dlCVxXGKXaNhXWiHHrF8kNtzNOM7THUIXM43VQHbtAcD2LseumDu1BVkoKZ+KOdXhs1JzsmRfPkvm3w5QUmv1kRmzXoq9fy83iXdW0fv5YWUnSL3k3bOaDLY6fHycA/3pw0JrBRE8tDP9O5rKxeEcrMpVZio= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738847819; c=relaxed/simple; bh=zPMubyTzwNIWyC+ejfLa+a/uH4M1ftWD5v1xxdK/8TU=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=ihwffSGcgRGAYjdFV1r+Os5L2+y/MitVxHpOKMqZ1L4oYoq6HgY2v69RRSCp6SC0EzzPZXD2Fck2NkA2tIQQXUbdnj5XoOGZivXTP/eYT40aJEgOAxn152Jv59ESRpmNlUie/dXhJBEJRdKiG/wjlabvTFooEVa+jD4E0DKKUjs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.188 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.88.194]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4YpczB6DdWzrRhk; Thu, 6 Feb 2025 21:15:18 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemh100008.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.181.93]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D08641400CA; Thu, 6 Feb 2025 21:16:54 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.121.90] (10.67.121.90) by kwepemh100008.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.93) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Thu, 6 Feb 2025 21:16:53 +0800 Message-ID: <632cb20b-97b8-4c45-ad92-da3e09fad52d@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 21:16:53 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/8] Support for autonomous selection in cppc_cpufreq To: , CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , References: <20250206131428.3261578-1-zhenglifeng1@huawei.com> From: "zhenglifeng (A)" In-Reply-To: <20250206131428.3261578-1-zhenglifeng1@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.181) To kwepemh100008.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.93) Hello Rafael & Viresh, There are two things about this patchset I would like your advice on: 1. Pierre and I have discussed about whether or not to show auto_act_window and energy_performance_preference_val when auto_select is disabled [1]. It seems like whether to show these two files has their own points. We'd like to ask for some advice. 2. In intel_pstate driver, there is a file named "energy_performance_preference", which accepts not only raw value but also a few string arguments and converts them to integers. But I think this implementation is not really nice and prefer not to follow it [2]. To distinguish it, I named the file in cppc_cpufreq "energy_performance_preference_val" instead of "energy_performance_preference". Should I follow the implementation of intel_pstate? Looking forward to your reply! Relevant discussion: [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/522721da-1a5c-439c-96a8-d0300dd0f906@huawei.com/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/0c511da2-6a4a-4fa2-9d82-da45d1afe346@huawei.com/