From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org by pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org (Dovecot) with LMTP id pPjeOTZLGlsmTQAAmS7hNA ; Fri, 08 Jun 2018 09:36:22 +0000 Received: by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BB105607DC; Fri, 8 Jun 2018 09:36:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=2.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57C2E60275; Fri, 8 Jun 2018 09:36:22 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 57C2E60275 Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752364AbeFHJgV (ORCPT + 25 others); Fri, 8 Jun 2018 05:36:21 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:39553 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751145AbeFHJgS (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jun 2018 05:36:18 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f65.google.com with SMTP id p11-v6so2418335wmc.4 for ; Fri, 08 Jun 2018 02:36:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=44pemS4X4ozOuSBwIJLOA0xpKcVtVrCxErmeUY5xf2Q=; b=hLQzKPO5WJUrgUZQ40Djz2SIHUVWNRCKaeZhKQk/In5JqeZpufYpqF8rxrzIl11fnt zsn7+PFAdPRHYstjenP29b5RDwU3nGpmdHlrIH2HVvjs48muS4IXnsldR5xBbhXzNnoo i8e5J5VYXvR1TOWnlmXXlS1dC1eJstBs9webChfsn8v3/p6ZaaQWPbjRyQrZ32DkcWRy blMS1TXWVyZVKoNt5NkEo1SgxJT850MYvVHBmUC78CwHvNoclmJiNml12Rm1HREmGV3G XJ6HKaGxTVIoDblvjzhdY2C8dnWqnaKk9xqmnr1Pb9ce+6aQGzIx7wFN1TkFwkniejse R/Fg== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E2ItXy/9YgojnekqETvQRPCX7c3kFbIvPEs4qfCyGRBUV/jAMKT iCq2q3xsIWH4SX1egQAJsj7VhA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKLKUVj3vTr5DGvmUbvgAVXoZsLGO5gmbeiciloXNCTa/a+Q6co7qxjL5Kz9W2wMrO+2y1t4XA== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:574b:: with SMTP id l72-v6mr1064275wmb.56.1528450577205; Fri, 08 Jun 2018 02:36:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([151.15.207.242]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q77-v6sm2052476wmg.25.2018.06.08.02.36.15 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 08 Jun 2018 02:36:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 11:36:13 +0200 From: Juri Lelli 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 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 03/10] PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework 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 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180608082511.GE3597@e108498-lin.cambridge.arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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.