From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D9B227A47F; Tue, 30 Dec 2025 09:44:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767087870; cv=none; b=WJRruR4qissOBBRaCg8XepCeQc4vbJp6vzg0PfjvqxqWVlKcFGmNu8Q/qv3kAA+QkLGFSsQUsF+fZ6SkFEFRaGYO3PwWV3UXGck4mRtOykFoE55LSzJviraRrlzE2PfOXGbNqvk6JzZ8wiD7p6AJ/vD90up6R+ul0UweWUcHAu4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767087870; c=relaxed/simple; bh=gQoHoP5LwK5SZnMkEbhkE4lFRqcVpDxpUMGekE8E5II=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=o/8H3n0LHEDmLn+3YJZEOHGhMACI8szu3RTeFV7c/wImXavBGMwb5BoxykJjV30/9EqOfdx0/FGmadYqdEbIddisisT4QVdSTWJtXf/UTkDlYFxcduQ7ocPKtjtrCJkm1Fl6sYC72XiOpdW7JI0KvQR54qWTpkpOn/2IFoNjkms= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F038F497; Tue, 30 Dec 2025 01:44:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.57.10.231] (unknown [10.57.10.231]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A1E733F63F; Tue, 30 Dec 2025 01:44:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <849b576e-9563-42ae-bd5c-756fb6dfd8de@arm.com> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 09:44:21 +0000 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: [PATCH for 6.19 0/4] Revise the EM YNL spec to be clearer To: Changwoo Min Cc: kernel-dev@igalia.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, horms@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, rafael@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, edumazet@google.com, davem@davemloft.net, sched-ext@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lenb@kernel.org, pavel@kernel.org, donald.hunter@gmail.com, kuba@kernel.org References: <20251225040104.982704-1-changwoo@igalia.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Lukasz Luba In-Reply-To: <20251225040104.982704-1-changwoo@igalia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Changwoo, On 12/25/25 04:01, Changwoo Min wrote: > This patch set addresses all the concerns raised at [1] to make the EM YNL spec > clearer. It includes the following changes: > > - Fix the lint errors (1/4). > - Rename em.yaml to dev-energymodel.yaml (2/4). “dev-energymodel” was used > instead of “device-energy-model”, which was originally proposed [2], because > the netlink protocol name cannot exceed GENL_NAMSIZ(16). In addition, docs > strings and flags attributes were added. > - Change cpus' type from string to u64 array of CPU ids (3/4). > - Add dump to get-perf-domains in the EM YNL spec (4/4). A user can fetch > either information about a specific performance domain with do or information > about all performance domains with dump. > > This can be tested using the tool, tools/net/ynl/pyynl/cli.py, for example, > with the following commands: > > $> tools/net/ynl/pyynl/cli.py \ > --spec Documentation/netlink/specs/dev-energymodel.yaml \ > --dump get-perf-domains > $> tools/net/ynl/pyynl/cli.py \ > --spec Documentation/netlink/specs/dev-energymodel.yaml \ > --do get-perf-domains --json '{"perf-domain-id": 0}' > $> tools/net/ynl/pyynl/cli.py \ > --spec Documentation/netlink/specs/dev-energymodel.yaml \ > --do get-perf-table --json '{"perf-domain-id": 0}' > $> tools/net/ynl/pyynl/cli.py \ > --spec Documentation/netlink/specs/dev-energymodel.yaml \ > --subscribe event --sleep 10 > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAD4GDZy-aeWsiY=-ATr+Y4PzhMX71DFd_mmdMk4rxn3YG8U5GA@mail.gmail.com/ > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAJZ5v0gpYQwC=1piaX-PNoyeoYJ7uw=DtAGdTVEXAsi4bnSdbA@mail.gmail.com/ My apologies, I've missed those conversations (not the best season). So what would be the procedure here for the review? Could Folks from netlink help here? I will do my bit for the EM related stuff (to double-check them). Regards, Lukasz