Re: Concerns with em.yaml YNL spec

[Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>]

On 12/16/25 00:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 4:01 PM Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com> wrote:
>>
>> Let me provide the context of what has been discussed. Essentially, the
>> question is what the proper name of the netlink protocol is and its file
>> name for the energy model.
>>
>> Donald raised concerns that “em” is too cryptic, so it should be
>> “energy-model”. The following is Donald’s comment:
>>
>>
>>     “- I think the spec could have been called energy-model.yaml and the
>>      family called "energy-model" instead of "em".”
>>
>>
>> Andrew’s opinion is that it would be appropriate to limit the scope of
>> “energy-model” by adding a prefix, for example, “performance-domain-
>> energy-model”. Andrew’s comment is as follows:
>>
>>     “And a dumb question. What is an energy model? A PSE needs some level
>>     of energy model, it needs to know how much energy each PD can consume
>>     in order that it is not oversubscribed. Is the energy model generic
>>     enough that it could be used for this? Or should this energy model get
>>     a prefix to limit its scope to a performance domain? The suggested
>>     name of this file would then become something like
>>     performance-domain-energy-model.yml?”
>>
>> For me, “performance-domain-energy-model” sounds weird because the
>> performance domain is conceptually under the energy model. If adding a
>> prefix to limit the scope, it should be something like “system-energy-
>> model”, and the “system” prefix looks redundant to me.
>>
>> So, the question is what the proper name is for the energy model
>> protocol: “em”, “energy-model”, “performance-domain-energy-model”, or
>> something else?
> 
> I personally would be for something like "device-energy-model", where
> "device" may mean any kind of device including CPU devices.
> 

"device-energy-model" sounds good to me. I will prepare the patchset
using that name. Thanks a lot!

Regards,
Changwoo Min