Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-88063-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2024 09:21:04 +0100
From: Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>
To: Alexey Charkov <alchark@gmail.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
 <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
 Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>, Daniel Lezcano
 <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Chen-Yu
 Tsai <wens@kernel.org>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: dts: rockchip: enable built-in thermal
 monitoring on RK3588
In-Reply-To: <CABjd4YxhL7m-neLFCQG5Aja2=stFdou7ji8m==UGPSSH-CybVw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20240229-rk-dts-additions-v3-0-6afe8473a631@gmail.com>
 <20240229-rk-dts-additions-v3-1-6afe8473a631@gmail.com>
 <5eb9193a44fb9f9b1e976412874cecef@manjaro.org>
 <CABjd4YzFuhfS9RhJ6svb9ZD0NqMT5B6GmqigHFLr8YG6FR5k=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <90d0cfd9b7d018e7332213f624f0f658@manjaro.org>
 <CABjd4YxhL7m-neLFCQG5Aja2=stFdou7ji8m==UGPSSH-CybVw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <edb0ba399467359e16e50c89a1671b7f@manjaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 2024-03-01 08:51, Alexey Charkov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 10:14 AM Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org> 
> wrote:
>> On 2024-03-01 06:20, Alexey Charkov wrote:
>> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 1:11 AM Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org> wrote:
>> >> See, I'm not a native English speaker, but I've spent a lot of time
>> >> and effort improving my English skills.  Thus, perhaps these comments
>> >> may or may not seem like unnecessary nitpicking, depending on how much
>> >> someone pays attention to writing style in general, but I'll risk to
>> >> be annoying and state these comments anyway. :)
>> >>
>> >> The comment above could be written in a much more condensed form like
>> >> this, which would also be a bit more accurate:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>                                 /* IPA threshold, when IPA governor is
>> >> used */
>> >>
>> >> IOW, we're writing all this for someone to read later, but we should
>> >> (and can) perfectly reasonably expect some already existing background
>> >> knowledge from the readers.  In other words, we should be as concise
>> >> as possible.
>> >
>> > In fact, the power allocation governor code itself doesn't call those
>> > trips threshold or target as your suggested wording would imply.
>> > Instead, it calls them "switch on temperature" and "maximum desired
>> > temperature" [1]. Maybe we can call them that in the comments (and
>> > also avoid calling the governor IPA, because upstream code only calls
>> > it a "power allocator").
>> 
>> Hmm, but "IPA" is still mentioned in exactly three places in the files
>> under drivers/thermal.  I think that warrants the use of "IPA", which
>> is also widely used pretty much everywhere.
>> 
>> Perhaps a win-win would be to have only the very first of the comments
>> like this, to introduce "IPA" as an acronym:
>> 
>>                                    /* Power allocator (IPA) thermal
>> governor       */
>>                                    /* switch-on point, when IPA 
>> governor
>> is used   */
> 
> Yes, good point, thanks!

I'm glad that you agree. :)

>> Next, "the target temperature" is mentioned more than a few times in
>> drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c, which I believe makes the use
>> of "IPA target" perfectly valid.  Actually, let's use "IPA target
>> temperature", if you agree, to make it self descriptive.
> 
> Or perhaps simply "target temperature"? Stepwise governor will also
> use this trip as its target, so it's not IPA specific, unlike the
> switch-on point.

I also had similar thoughts about the shared nature.  I agree, just
"/* target temperature */" would be fine.

>> Finally, the threshold...  Based on
>> drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c,
>> I think "IPA switch-on point" would be a good choice, which I already
>> used above in the proposed opening comment.
> 
> Agreed, that sounds good to me, will reflect in the next iteration.
> Thanks for bringing it up!

Great, thanks!