Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Introduce 'advanced' Energy Model in DT

[Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>]

On 2/23/22 11:27, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 23-02-22, 11:22, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>> On 2/23/22 10:43, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> On 23-02-22, 10:52, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> why not extend the energy model to any kind of devices?
>>>
>>> FWIW, the OPP core supports a wide range of devices now, not just CPUs.
> 
> There are many other devices which still use Freq.
> 
>> Is that the "opp-level" thing which would allow that?
> 
> For power supplies/regulators, we don't have freq and they use level, right.
> 
> Also for interconnect we use bandwidth, in a similar way.
> 
>> I can see some DT files with regulators(?) using it e.g. [1].
>> It looks flexible, the opp-hz is not hard requirement,
>> the opp-level can be used instead IIUC.
> 
> Right.
> 

Looks good. It also doesn't collide with this patch set.

We could have an opp entry like:

	opp_1: opp-1 {
		opp-level = <1>;
		opp-microwatt = <200000>;
	};

Daniel would that design make sense to you?


If yes, we could discuss this further after this first
step for fixing GPU in merged. I would need to re-think
the EM em_perf_state and maybe the new ::level there.