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:   Fri, 8 Jun 2018 11:31:14 +0100
From:   Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
To:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Cc:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>, 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: <20180608103113.GB418@e108498-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
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>
 <20180608093613.GD658@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180608093613.GD658@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Friday 08 Jun 2018 at 11:36:13 (+0200), Juri Lelli wrote:
> 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.

Hmmm I see your point. OK, having an example will help. I'll keep patch
10/10 and add an other one tweaking cpufreq-dt to give an example. But
I'll mark the two as OPTIONAL. I really hope we can reach an agreement
on the core design ideas before discussing too much the details on the
driver side.

There are several valid places where em_register_freq_domain() can be
called. But the exact way of doing so will be platform-dependent, and
driver-dependent, so let's agree on what we want to know from the
drivers first :-)

Thanks,
Quentin