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, 11 Aug 2021 11:04:06 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Cc:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com>,
        lukasz.luba@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: <20210811053406.jqwextgtnxhgsjd2@vireshk-i7>
References: <cover.1628579170.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <YRJym+Vn4bbwQzzs@google.com>
 <20210811051859.ihjzhvrnuct2knvy@vireshk-i7>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210811051859.ihjzhvrnuct2knvy@vireshk-i7>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52
Precedence: bulk

On 11-08-21, 10:48, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 10-08-21, 13:35, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > This series adds more code than it removes,
> 
> Sadly yes :(
> 
> > and the unregistration is
> > not a fix as we don't ever remove the EM tables by design, so not sure
> > either of these points are valid arguments.
> 
> I think that design needs to be looked over again, it looks broken to
> me everytime I land onto this code. I wonder why we don't unregister
> stuff.

Coming back to this series. We have two options, based on what I
proposed here:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/20210811050327.3yxrk4kqxjjwaztx@vireshk-i7/

1. Let cpufreq core register with EM on behalf of cpufreq drivers.

2. Update drivers to use ->ready() callback to do this stuff.

I am fine with both :)

-- 
viresh