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:   Tue, 10 Aug 2021 14:53:18 +0100
From:   Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
To:     Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] cpufreq: Auto-register with energy model
Message-ID: <YRKEztjdIFU1J5/9@google.com>
References: <cover.1628579170.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <YRJym+Vn4bbwQzzs@google.com>
 <af06b333-3d8a-807c-9ccb-d491d6a54930@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <af06b333-3d8a-807c-9ccb-d491d6a54930@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tuesday 10 Aug 2021 at 14:25:15 (+0100), Lukasz Luba wrote:
> The way I see this is that the flag in cpufreq avoids
> mistakes potentially made by driver developer. It will automaticaly
> register the *simple* EM model via dev_pm_opp_of_register_em() on behalf
> of drivers (which is already done manually by drivers). The developer
> would just set the flag similarly to CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV and be sure
> it will register at the right time. Well tested flag approach should be
> safer, easier to understand, maintain.

I would agree with all that if calling dev_pm_opp_of_register_em() was
complicated, but that is not really the case. I don't think we ever call
PM_OPP directly from cpufreq core ATM, which makes a lot of sense if you
consider PM_OPP arch-specific. I could understand that we might accept a
little 'violation' of the abstraction with this series if there were
real benefits, but I just don't see them.