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, 31 May 2019 08:58:54 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
Cc:     edubezval@gmail.com, rui.zhang@intel.com, javi.merino@kernel.org,
        amit.kachhap@gmail.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, will.deacon@arm.com,
        catalin.marinas@arm.com, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, ionela.voinescu@arm.com,
        mka@chromium.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] thermal: cpu_cooling: Migrate to using the EM
 framework
Message-ID: <20190531032854.m66ugtyjyjnksrqr@vireshk-i7>
References: <20190530092038.12020-1-quentin.perret@arm.com>
 <20190530092038.12020-4-quentin.perret@arm.com>
 <20190530112747.nlfyctzjkz5lak7o@queper01-lin>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190530112747.nlfyctzjkz5lak7o@queper01-lin>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 30-05-19, 12:27, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Thursday 30 May 2019 at 10:20:38 (+0100), Quentin Perret wrote:
> > The newly introduced Energy Model framework manages power cost tables in
> > a generic way. Moreover, it supports several types of models since the
> > tables can come from DT or firmware (through SCMI) for example. On the
> > other hand, the cpu_cooling subsystem manages its own power cost tables
> > using only DT data.
> > 
> > In order to avoid the duplication of data in the kernel, and in order to
> > enable IPA with EMs coming from more than just DT, remove the private
> > tables from cpu_cooling.c and migrate it to using the centralized EM
> > framework. Doing so should have no visible functional impact for
> > existing users of IPA since:
> > 
> >  - recent extenstions to the the PM_OPP infrastructure enable the
> >    registration of EMs in PM_EM using the DT property used by IPA;
> > 
> >  - the existing upstream cpufreq drivers marked with the
> >    'CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV' flag all use the aforementioned PM_OPP
> >    infrastructure, which means they all support PM_EM. The only two
> >    exceptions are qoriq-cpufreq which doesn't in fact use an EM and
> >    scmi-cpufreq which doesn't use DT for power costs.
> > 
> > For existing users of cpu_cooling, PM_EM tables will contain the exact
> > same power values that IPA used to compute on its own until now. The
> > only new dependency for them is to compile in CONFIG_ENERGY_MODEL.
> > 
> > The case where the thermal subsystem is used without an Energy Model
> > (cpufreq_cooling_ops) is handled by looking directly at CPUFreq's
> > frequency table which is already a dependency for cpu_cooling.c anyway.
> > Since the thermal framework expects the cooling states in a particular
> > order, bail out whenever the CPUFreq table is unsorted, since that is
> > fairly uncommon in general, and there are currently no users of
> > cpu_cooling for this use-case.
> > 
> > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> 
> Viresh: the patch hasn't changed much so I kept this, but please shout
> if you're not happy with the new version :-)

Yeah, it  looked fine and so I didn't complain :)

-- 
viresh