Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 26 May 2021 15:03:18 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Cc:     Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com>,
        peterz@infradead.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, qperret@google.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ionela.voinescu@arm.com,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] EM / PM: Inefficient OPPs
Message-ID: <20210526093318.cbtjkybzwdchxi5y@vireshk-i7>
References: <1621616064-340235-1-git-send-email-vincent.donnefort@arm.com>
 <20210526034751.5fl4kekq73gqy2wq@vireshk-i7>
 <068fa9c4-2b55-3d75-adc7-cf5ef2174b12@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <068fa9c4-2b55-3d75-adc7-cf5ef2174b12@arm.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52
Precedence: bulk

On 26-05-21, 09:56, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> No, these OPPs have to stay because they are used in thermal for cooling
> states.

This won't break the thermal tables. Thermal just sets the max-freq for a CPU,
and it doesn't depend on the OPP table for that.

> DT cooling devices might have them set as a scope of possible
> states. We don't want to break existing platforms, don't we?

I don't think we will end up breaking anything here.

> We want to 'avoid' those OPPs when possible (no thermal pressure), but
> we might have to use them sometimes.

Why would we want to use them if they are inefficient ? Thermal or something
else as well ?

More in the other reply I am sending to Vincent.

-- 
viresh