From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fanzine2.igalia.com (fanzine2.igalia.com [213.97.179.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92A85284689; Tue, 16 Dec 2025 02:07:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.97.179.56 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765850827; cv=none; b=FNC8qjUFLKNf+VZaLs8b7f/9FvxauCRfAfildwNBSnK4XQVLiYlwtOXB0Kw8p5Qh6oS+NIznbRqNUdDo+Xy8kz4CItHsJ8zAQ69wCkydTpFftpGgCq4cqvj+X4ajoqg0qbl/eKOJzZPc4u0HJ3oZPTuyj//EMCL+L+z4DNFzOWs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765850827; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vJNzuAB9aCQ3iCQ/OVtcwtSW5InmdrpWVS63tpANSUY=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=eNjkya8c7gyPmQYBYrCqnpD2OlJLgRtDwZt+AWMPh34Gvp9jFEoGmEFyMoEaQBtYBktp43hO/BNCKUEfB7iGVm9sXnHPpYaWN6QywunYeKcB06BNOLOvGkzyXV+jFQsMhHfhm4hlfb0fiaPSu3/QyhW089jZ+vhS3E6mbS7ynAs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=igalia.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=igalia.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=igalia.com header.i=@igalia.com header.b=LW9KzPpO; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.97.179.56 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=igalia.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=igalia.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=igalia.com header.i=@igalia.com header.b="LW9KzPpO" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=igalia.com; s=20170329; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:From: References:Cc:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Sender:Reply-To: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=ldRBwp84+N56IOmiRqFbTLgnv/9C2lSWj3Qv9qjuFSI=; b=LW9KzPpObkzHDAgeJ/VTx9d755 iGasc+utW+HupKuEC3hgobNMpHf+7na2I4V+NORj0mglCmnLq2br4t33RZxKQ98MTmFc1dvWnKzhQ GARcC5o4zSdsjk9nQ+bCQC9ZtVw3dDCbQvj1HD5VLHAwf7WD7N3fYk4hx46RY9is5RwgdxO79yE2E PCh1j/2to7SjpsQT5oPTGrZ4WhAhMIu2zSJEKpJe5Utm/sxCuty5dUBdcjuvAGOAOZSHEcr5HTBDf vu5fD4k49VLv3aBM9Q0OPncoi1AmLGJDUeoELah6xE7dT+/Ewq2XPd1ZKFEk0ehPRxvEKAYx1a8Ge Egr37ivQ==; Received: from [58.29.143.236] (helo=[192.168.1.6]) by fanzine2.igalia.com with esmtpsa (Cipher TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_128_GCM:128) (Exim) id 1vVKSm-00DCLx-4S; Tue, 16 Dec 2025 03:06:56 +0100 Message-ID: <0d523461-c9b9-402a-b317-badcbd48dae0@igalia.com> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2025 11:06:49 +0900 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Concerns with em.yaml YNL spec To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Andrew Lunn , Donald Hunter , Lukasz Luba , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, sched-ext@lists.linux.dev, Jakub Kicinski , Network Development , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <081e0ba7-055c-4243-8b39-e2c0cb9a8c5a@lunn.ch> <4bb1ea43-ef52-47ae-8009-6a2944dbf92b@igalia.com> From: Changwoo Min Content-Language: en-US, ko-KR, en-US-large, ko In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 12/16/25 00:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 4:01 PM Changwoo Min 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