From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751410AbdKURtK (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Nov 2017 12:49:10 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com ([74.125.82.48]:43769 "EHLO mail-wm0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751357AbdKURtI (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Nov 2017 12:49:08 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZXcKxzO6Mtn7LKDDVAHFEerGzXk/FZbnzbFGUC/7g1RTsw6FZpqh0ED8hT2q2wL+t9mngnnw== Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] cpu_cooling: Drop static-power related stuff To: Eduardo Valentin , Ionela Voinescu Cc: Punit Agrawal , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Viresh Kumar , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Amit Daniel Kachhap , Javi Merino , Zhang Rui , Steven Rostedt , Ingo Molnar , Linux PM , Vincent Guittot , lukasz.luba@arm.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Javi Merino References: <65fef2a1-d23f-3de2-bd91-021296c3e2f7@arm.com> <20171116152058.GR3257@vireshk-i7> <2810372.fJ2vMN0cWO@aspire.rjw.lan> <20171116234422.GA6141@localhost.localdomain> <878tf5tbfj.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <35d3751d-f28d-38c2-02b2-c9980f11c52e@arm.com> <20171121170917.GB2499@localhost.localdomain> From: Daniel Lezcano Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 18:49:04 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171121170917.GB2499@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 21/11/2017 18:09, Eduardo Valentin wrote: [ ... ] > Well, I really do not see the point of a ask to extend the current API > if have no single user of it. What are the current users problems with > the API? What needs to be improved? What are the problems? We cannot > tell, guess why? We have no users of it! > > Once again, do we have a reference platform? Oh, yes, that is Juno, and > not even that is in mainline code. > > Folks, this can be a very nice discussion on how we can over engineer > this API, but being pragmatic and avoiding wasting our time here, we all > know what needs to be done. Dead code in mainline is hard to maintain. > API to support out of the tree code is even harder. I am surprised to > see this code was able to sustain itself in mainline with none > challenging it for 2.5 y. So, we either get you guys to upstream at > least one user of it or we just move on and remove the API, and keep > mainline with only dynamic power, with periodic undershoots and > overshoots. It is a simple decision: you either mainline it or keep IPA > MORE inaccurate and take the burden to keep vendor own implementation > of APIs for static power model on each product cycle, you choose. +1 to remove it. -- Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog