Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] thermal: mediatek: Add cpu power cooling model.

From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: dawei chien <dawei.chien@mediatek.com>,
	Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com>
Cc: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@chromium.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, srv_heupstream@mediatek.com,
	Sascha Hauer <kernel@pengutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] thermal: mediatek: Add cpu power cooling model.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 08:54:33 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151106032433.GL3773@ubuntu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1446721837.4016.57.camel@mtksdaap41>

Cc'ing Javi (which you should have as he wrote the power-thing for
cpu-cooling).

On 05-11-15, 19:10, dawei chien wrote:
> This is because our platform currently only support mt8173_cpufreq.c, so
> that I only add static power model for our owner IC.

Bindings are (normally) supposed to be general than a platform
specific.

> Please understanding that I wouldn't give a DT binding document since I
> will remove static power table on next version, but I can try to explain
> it.

Then just don't add things in the first place.

> As far as I know, static power is somewhat leakage of CPU clusters, so
> that we hardly to find a formula, which can suitable all kinds of CPUs
> since leakage is different. In ARM IPA framework, static power only need
> to be defined by who register cpufreq_power_cooling_register. The
> voltage/power table is just one way to present leakage power of CPUs.

The bindings don't fix the values for static power, but just provides
a field for platforms to use. Everyone can then send its own power
figures. Why do you thing it can't be generalized?

> Actually, static power is optional since dynamic power is much more than
> static power.

Maybe, we should still capture it.

@Javi ?

-- 
viresh