Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 16 Apr 2018 13:29:11 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>, edubezval@gmail.com,
        kevin.wangtao@linaro.org, leo.yan@linaro.org,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        javi.merino@kernel.org, rui.zhang@intel.com,
        daniel.thompson@linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] thermal/drivers/cpu_cooling: Introduce the cpu
 idle cooling driver
Message-ID: <20180416122911.GC3706@e107533-lin>
References: <1522945005-7165-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
 <1522945005-7165-7-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
 <3f3b3b7a-3b74-aee2-2fac-f2759babe3f0@arm.com>
 <939f7943-feec-aaa2-3bd3-59a6618330c0@linaro.org>
 <20180416073729.GA4244@vireshk-i7>
 <0a3164f9-4738-e24e-6ed0-2c75024c304c@linaro.org>
 <20180416093747.GB4244@vireshk-i7>
 <4abf0d97-d2b8-46ab-3c05-4a11510ac3fe@linaro.org>
 <20180416095006.GC4244@vireshk-i7>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180416095006.GC4244@vireshk-i7>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 03:20:06PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 16-04-18, 11:45, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > Can you elaborate a bit ? I'm not sure to get the point.
> 
> Sure. With your current code on Hikey960 (big/LITTLE), you end up
> creating two cooling devices, one for the big cluster and one for
> small cluster. Which is the right thing to do, as we also have two
> cpufreq cooling devices.
> 
> But with the change Sudeep is referring to, the helper you used to get
> cluster id will return 0 (SoC id) for all the 8 CPUs. So your code
> will end up creating a single cpuidle cooling device for all the CPUs.
> Which would be wrong.
> 
> > BTW, Am I asked to change my code to stick to something which is not
> > merged ?
> 
> Sudeep looked pretty confident on how the meaning of this routine is
> going to change very soon. I will let him respond on what guarantees
> we have that it will get merged :)
> 

Viresh has already summarised it correctly. I don't have much to add.
Unless the system has multiple package, this routine will return 0(or some
fixed socket number, I don't think it can be different from 0 but
theoretically it can be anything but has to be same for all the CPUs)

--
Regards,
Sudeep