Re: [PATCH 1/4] PM / EM: and devices to Energy Model

From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
To: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>, Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Cc: nm@ti.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
	viresh.kumar@linaro.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, bsegall@google.com,
	alyssa.rosenzweig@collabora.com, Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com,
	amit.kucheria@verdurent.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
	khilman@kernel.org, agross@kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org,
	steven.price@arm.com, cw00.choi@samsung.com, mingo@redhat.com,
	linux-imx@nxp.com, rui.zhang@intel.com, kernel-team@android.com,
	mgorman@suse.de, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, s.hauer@pengutronix.de,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
	matthias.bgg@gmail.com, Chris.Redpath@arm.com,
	linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	airlied@linux.ie, javi.merino@arm.com,
	tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com, sboyd@kernel.org,
	shawnguo@kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, b.zolnierkie@samsung.com,
	kernel@pengutronix.de, sudeep.holla@arm.com,
	ionela.voinescu@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] PM / EM: and devices to Energy Model
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 19:27:26 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8332c4ac-2a7d-1e2d-76e9-7c979a666257@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200120150918.GA164543@google.com>

On 20/01/2020 16:09, Quentin Perret wrote:
> Hey Lukasz,
> 
> On Monday 20 Jan 2020 at 14:52:07 (+0000), Lukasz Luba wrote:
>> On 1/17/20 10:54 AM, Quentin Perret wrote:
>>> Suggested alternative: have two registration functions like so:
>>>
>>> 	int em_register_dev_pd(struct device *dev, unsigned int nr_states,
>>> 			       struct em_data_callback *cb);
>>> 	int em_register_cpu_pd(cpumask_t *span, unsigned int nr_states,
>>> 			       struct em_data_callback *cb);
>>
>> Interesting, in the internal review Dietmar asked me to remove these two
>> functions. I had the same idea, which would simplify a bit the
>> registration and it does not need to check the dev->bus if it is CPU.
>>
>> Unfortunately, we would need also two function in drivers/opp/of.c:
>> dev_pm_opp_of_register_cpu_em(policy->cpus);
>> and
>> dev_pm_opp_of_register_dev_em(dev);
>>
>> Thus, I have created only one registration function, which you can see
>> in this patch set.
> 
> Right, I can see how having a unified API would be appealing, but the
> OPP dependency is a nono, so we'll need to work around one way or
> another.
> 
> FWIW, I don't think having separate APIs for CPUs and other devices is
> that bad given that we already have entirely different frameworks to
> drive their respective frequencies. And the _cpu variants are basically
> just wrappers around the _dev ones, so not too bad either IMO :).

It's true that we need the policy->cpus cpumask only for cpu devices and
we have it available when we call em_register_perf_domain()
[scmi-cpufreq.c driver] or the OPP wrapper dev_pm_opp_of_register_em()
[e.g. cpufreq-dt.c driver].

And we shouldn't make EM code dependent on OPP.

But can't we add 'struct cpumask *mask' as an additional argument to
both which can be set to NULL for (devfreq) devices?

We can check in em_register_perf_domain() that we got a valid cpumask
for a cpu device and ignore it for (devfreq) devices.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel