From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BB60C4332F for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 09:39:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232838AbiBXJk0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Feb 2022 04:40:26 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:59014 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232146AbiBXJkZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Feb 2022 04:40:25 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E28BA27B9A2; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 01:39:55 -0800 (PST) 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 AC847ED1; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 01:39:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.57.8.211] (unknown [10.57.8.211]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BC60C3F70D; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 01:39:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <927bb145-abf8-a15a-506f-0f060384d096@arm.com> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 09:39:52 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] Documentation: EM: Describe new registration method using DT Content-Language: en-US To: Viresh Kumar Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rafael@kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, nm@ti.com, sboyd@kernel.org, mka@chromium.org, dianders@chromium.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org References: <20220224081131.27282-1-lukasz.luba@arm.com> <20220224081131.27282-5-lukasz.luba@arm.com> <20220224091508.fp7emu2zyhavkfkt@vireshk-i7> <02d16fbe-d4d6-a7f1-d81f-39f05dff76fc@arm.com> <20220224093717.3vsi4t26zcmoh2ra@vireshk-i7> From: Lukasz Luba In-Reply-To: <20220224093717.3vsi4t26zcmoh2ra@vireshk-i7> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2/24/22 09:37, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 24-02-22, 09:25, Lukasz Luba wrote: >> Our partners had a lot of issues with EM+EAS, because they were not >> aware of the internals of EM and limitations. >> >> We've started to name two types of EM: 'advanced' and 'simple'. >> The 'simple' is the one which causes issues. Now when we contact with >> partners we ask if they use 'simple' EM and see some issues in EAS. >> This is a needed clarification and naming convention that we use. >> >> Here the paragraph name is stressing the fact explicitly that >> from today we have the option to provide real power measurements using >> DT and it will be the 'advanced' EM. > > I understand the background now, and since I am part of the same > community I can appreciate that. But being a maintainer, I have to say > that when we look at something from Upstream's point of view, we may > have to neglect/ignore the terminology used in downstream. I understand your upstream point of view. > > From what I can see, there is no advancement here, as of now. This is > a very small change where we are getting pre-evaluated power values > from DT, instead of calculating them at runtime. The data may be more > correct, but the EM doesn't get advanced because of that. And so using > such terminology is only going to harm further. If EM gets a > "advanced" algorithm later on, which can improve things, then yes we > can call it advanced, but for now there is nothing. > Fair enough, I'll drop this word from the paragraph name.