Re: [PATCH v7 00/23] Introduce runtime modifiable Energy Model

[Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>]

On 17/01/2024 10:56, Lukasz Luba wrote:

[...]

> Changelog:
> v7:
> - dropped em_table_get/put() (Rafael)
> - renamed memory function to em_table_alloc/free() (Rafael)
> - use explicit rcu_read_lock/unlock() instead of wrappers and aligned
>   frameworks & drivers using EM (Rafael)
> - adjusted documentation to the new functions
> - fixed doxygen comments (Rafael)
> - renamed 'refcount' to 'kref' (Rafael)
> - changed patch headers according to comments (Rafael)
> - rebased on 'next-20240112' to get Ingo's revert affecting energy_model.h
> v6 [6]:
> - renamed 'runtime_table' to 'em_table' (Dietmar, Rafael)
> - dropped kref increment during allocation (Qais)
> - renamed em_inc/dec_usage() to em_table_inc/dec() (Qais)
> - fixed comment description and left old comment block with small
>   adjustment in em_cpu_energy() patch 15/23 (Dietmar)
> - added platform name which was used for speed-up testing (Dietmar)
> - changed patch header description keep it small not repeating the in-code
>   comment describing 'cost' in em_cpu_energy() patch 15/23 (Dietmar)
> - added check and warning in em_cpu_energy() about RCU lock held (Qais, Xuewen)
> - changed nr_perf_states usage in the patch 7/23 (Dietmar)
> - changed documentation according to comments (Dietmar)
> - changed in-code comment in patch 11/23 according to comments (Dietmar)
> - changed example driver function 'ctx' argument in the documentation (Xuewen)
> - changed the example driver in documentation, dropped module_exit and
>   added em_free_table() explicit in the update function
> - fixed comments in various patch headers (Dietmar)
> - fixed Doxygen comment s/@state/@table patch 4/23 (Dietmar)
> - added information in the cover letter about:
> -- optimization in EAS hot code path
> -- follow-up patch set which adds OPP support and modifies EM for Exynos5
> - rebased on 'next-20240104' to avoid collision with other code touching
>   em_cpu_energy()

LGTM now. I see that my comments from v5 have been addressed. Minor
points which still exists for me I commented on in the individual patches.

For the whole series:

Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Tested-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>

(with a simple test driver updating the EM for CPU0 on Arm64 Juno-r0)