Re: [PATCH 0/2][RFC] Add SWIG Bindings to libcpupower

[Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>]

On 8/21/24 01:08, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 8/20/24 00:40, John B. Wyatt IV wrote:
>> I wanted to follow up on this since I am close to sending out the v2 of
>> this patchset.
>>

Here is more complete response after my quick response.

>> 3 points I wanted to raise:
>>
>> 1) Does everyone understand, is okay with the SWIG license, and wants to
>> proceed with me sending in a more complete version of this as a candidate for
>> upstreaming?
>>

Yes - send patch series without RFC tag.

>> 2) About maintainership: if I am to be the maintainer of this, how would
>> myself and John Kacur be listed? As a CPU POWER MONITORING SUBSYSTEM
>> maintainer, a separate category below it called CPU POWER MONITORING SUBSYSTEM
>> PYTHON BINDINGS maintainer, or is not needed to be listed at this time?
>>

Let's not add a new category at this time. You can add yourself and John Kacur
be Reviewers under CPU POWER MONITORING SUBSYSTEM for now. We can revisit as
we go forward.

>> A quick search for bindings shows what I believe to be all of them for device
>> tree. This may establish a new precedent.
>>

I don't fully understand the above. Will this patch series include device tree
changes? I didn't get that from the RFC.

>> If I was to be added, I assume it would be a separate commit in the v2
>> submission?
>>
>> 3) I had to comment out powercap_set_enabled
>>
>> SWIG reported this symbol not being found despite being in powercap.h. I did a
>> quick search and was not able to find it's implementation in powercap.c. The
>> get equivalent powercap_get_enabled is in powercap.c. Wanted to check on this
>> just in case it is a bug or part of future functionality. I am assuming the
>> latter; I would send it v2 with that declaration commented out with a note
>> explaining it for users if there is no objection.

Good find. It is missing functionality. For now you can define it in powercap.c to
simply return 0 with a TODO

thanks,
-- Shuah