Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <927bb145-abf8-a15a-506f-0f060384d096@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Feb 2022 09:39:52 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] Documentation: EM: Describe new registration
 method using DT
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        rafael@kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, nm@ti.com,
        sboyd@kernel.org, mka@chromium.org, dianders@chromium.org,
        robh+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220224081131.27282-1-lukasz.luba@arm.com>
 <20220224081131.27282-5-lukasz.luba@arm.com>
 <20220224091508.fp7emu2zyhavkfkt@vireshk-i7>
 <02d16fbe-d4d6-a7f1-d81f-39f05dff76fc@arm.com>
 <20220224093717.3vsi4t26zcmoh2ra@vireshk-i7>
From:   Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220224093717.3vsi4t26zcmoh2ra@vireshk-i7>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2/24/22 09:37, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 24-02-22, 09:25, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>> Our partners had a lot of issues with EM+EAS, because they were not
>> aware of the internals of EM and limitations.
>>
>> We've started to name two types of EM: 'advanced' and 'simple'.
>> The 'simple' is the one which causes issues. Now when we contact with
>> partners we ask if they use 'simple' EM and see some issues in EAS.
>> This is a needed clarification and naming convention that we use.
>>
>> Here the paragraph name is stressing the fact explicitly that
>> from today we have the option to provide real power measurements using
>> DT and it will be the 'advanced' EM.
> 
> I understand the background now, and since I am part of the same
> community I can appreciate that. But being a maintainer, I have to say
> that when we look at something from Upstream's point of view, we may
> have to neglect/ignore the terminology used in downstream.

I understand your upstream point of view.

> 
>  From what I can see, there is no advancement here, as of now. This is
> a very small change where we are getting pre-evaluated power values
> from DT, instead of calculating them at runtime. The data may be more
> correct, but the EM doesn't get advanced because of that. And so using
> such terminology is only going to harm further. If EM gets a
> "advanced" algorithm later on, which can improve things, then yes we
> can call it advanced, but for now there is nothing.
> 

Fair enough, I'll drop this word from the paragraph name.