[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4e090ffe-c19b-8e2c-0396-72dc33361f35@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 18:18:29 +0000
From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
To: daniel.lezcano@...aro.org
Cc: amit.kachhap@...il.com, viresh.kumar@...aro.org, rafael@...nel.org,
amitk@...nel.org, rui.zhang@...el.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
Pierre.Gondois@....com, Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] thermal: cooling: Check Energy Model type in
cpufreq_cooling and devfreq_cooling
Hi Daniel,
On 2/7/22 7:30 AM, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> The Energy Model supports power values either in Watts or in some abstract
> scale. When the 2nd option is in use, the thermal governor IPA should not
> be allowed to operate, since the relation between cooling devices is not
> properly defined. Thus, it might be possible that big GPU has lower power
> values in abstract scale than a Little CPU. To mitigate a misbehaviour
> of the thermal control algorithm, simply not register a cooling device
> capable of working with IPA.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
> ---
> drivers/thermal/cpufreq_cooling.c | 2 +-
> drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
The discussion in below this patch went slightly off-topic but it was
valuable. It clarified also there are no broken platforms with this
change.
Could you take the patch into the thermal tree, please?
Regards,
Lukasz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists