Re: [PATCH 1/2] thermal: cooling: Check Energy Model type in cpufreq_cooling and devfreq_cooling

[Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>]

Hi Lukasz,

On 22/02/2022 19:31, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/22/22 18:12, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>
>> Hi Lukasz,
>>
>> I don't think it makes sense to remove the support of the energy model 
>> if the units are abstracts.
>>
>> IIUC, regarding your previous answer, we don't really know what will 
>> do the SoC vendor with these numbers and likely they will provide 
>> consistent abstract values which won't prevent a correct behavior.
>>
>> What would be the benefit of giving inconsistent abstract values which 
>> will be unusable except of giving a broken energy model?
> 
> The power values in the EM which has abstract scale, would make sense to 
> EAS, but not for IPA or DTPM. Those platforms which want to enable EAS,
> but don't need IPA, would register such '<a_good_name_here>' EM.

Sorry, but I don't understand why DTPM can not deal with abstract values?


>> Your proposed changes would be acceptable if the energy model has a 
>> broken flag IMO
> 
> That is doable. I can add that flag, so we can call it 'artificial' EM
> (when this new flag is set).

It is too soon IMO, I would like to see the numbers first so we can take 
an enlighten decision. Right now, it is unclear what the numbers will be.


> Let me craft the RFC patch with this new flag proposal then.
> Do you agree? Can I also add you as 'Suggested-by'?
> 
> Thank you for coming back to me with the comments.


-- 
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog