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

[Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>]

Hi Dietmar,

On 1/29/24 18:16, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> 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)

Thank you for the review and testing!

I'll probably have to re-base the v7 on top of some current PM
branch.

Regards,
Lukasz