[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5A14B78B.8070407@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:32:27 +0100
From: Lukasz Luba <llu.ker.dev@...il.com>
To: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
CC: Javi Merino <javi.merino@...nel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>,
Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@....com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@...il.com>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] cpu_cooling: Drop static-power related stuff
On 21/11/17 19:13, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 07:05:46PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 21/11/2017 19:00, Javi Merino wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 08:57:06AM -0800, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> As I said before, the minimal you guys (ARM and Linaro) can do is to at
>>>> least upstream the Juno code! as a reference. Come on guys? what is
>>>> preventing you to upstream Juno model?
>>>
>>> As Ionela pointed out earlier in the thread, the cpufreq driver for Juno
>>> was not acceptable for mainline because it used platform specific code.
>>> When it was converted to cpufreq-dt, the static power was left behind
>>> because it can't be represented in device tree. This is because there
>>> isn't a function that works for every SoC, different process nodes
>>> (among other things) will need different functions. So it can't be just
>>> a bunch of coefficients in DT, we need a function. Hence the callback.
>>
>> The DT could contain the coef and a compatible string for a specific
>> polynomial computation callback. I imagine we should not have a lot of
>> different equations, no ?
>>
>
> Yeah, that would be another way of doing it. If there is no equation
> that correlates all processes, then we need a vendor specific entry, or
> a compatible string, as Daniel said.
>
So we have ~8 weeks (before it will vanish from mainline) to come up
with ideas
or to show that it is needed and used by some platform.
Let's see...
Regards,
Lukasz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists