From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com>,
lukasz.luba@arm.com, Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] cpufreq: Auto-register with energy model
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 15:23:11 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210811095311.e6wnma2ubkqdtuic@vireshk-i7> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YROc95YKA1Y/TfYI@google.com>
On 11-08-21, 10:48, Quentin Perret wrote:
> I think this should work, but perhaps will be a bit tricky for cpufreq
> driver developers as they need to have a pretty good understanding of
> the stack to know that they should do the registration from here and not
> ->init() for instance. Suggested alternative: we introduce a ->register_em()
> callback to cpufreq_driver, and turn dev_pm_opp_of_register_em() into a
> valid handler for this callback. This should 'document' things a bit
> better, avoid some of the problems your other series tried to achieve, and
> allow us to call the EM registration in exactly the right place from
> cpufreq core. On the plus side, we could easily make this work for e.g.
> the SCMI driver which would only need to provide its own version of
> ->register_em().
>
> Thoughts?
I had exactly the same thing in mind, but was thinking of two
callbacks, to register and unregister. But yeah, we aren't going to
register for now at least :)
I wasn't sure if that should be done or not, since we also have
ready() callback. So was reluctant to suggest it earlier. But that can
work well as well.
--
viresh
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com>,
lukasz.luba@arm.com, Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] cpufreq: Auto-register with energy model
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 15:23:11 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210811095311.e6wnma2ubkqdtuic@vireshk-i7> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YROc95YKA1Y/TfYI@google.com>
On 11-08-21, 10:48, Quentin Perret wrote:
> I think this should work, but perhaps will be a bit tricky for cpufreq
> driver developers as they need to have a pretty good understanding of
> the stack to know that they should do the registration from here and not
> ->init() for instance. Suggested alternative: we introduce a ->register_em()
> callback to cpufreq_driver, and turn dev_pm_opp_of_register_em() into a
> valid handler for this callback. This should 'document' things a bit
> better, avoid some of the problems your other series tried to achieve, and
> allow us to call the EM registration in exactly the right place from
> cpufreq core. On the plus side, we could easily make this work for e.g.
> the SCMI driver which would only need to provide its own version of
> ->register_em().
>
> Thoughts?
I had exactly the same thing in mind, but was thinking of two
callbacks, to register and unregister. But yeah, we aren't going to
register for now at least :)
I wasn't sure if that should be done or not, since we also have
ready() callback. So was reluctant to suggest it earlier. But that can
work well as well.
--
viresh
_______________________________________________
Linux-mediatek mailing list
Linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com>,
lukasz.luba@arm.com, Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] cpufreq: Auto-register with energy model
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 15:23:11 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210811095311.e6wnma2ubkqdtuic@vireshk-i7> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YROc95YKA1Y/TfYI@google.com>
On 11-08-21, 10:48, Quentin Perret wrote:
> I think this should work, but perhaps will be a bit tricky for cpufreq
> driver developers as they need to have a pretty good understanding of
> the stack to know that they should do the registration from here and not
> ->init() for instance. Suggested alternative: we introduce a ->register_em()
> callback to cpufreq_driver, and turn dev_pm_opp_of_register_em() into a
> valid handler for this callback. This should 'document' things a bit
> better, avoid some of the problems your other series tried to achieve, and
> allow us to call the EM registration in exactly the right place from
> cpufreq core. On the plus side, we could easily make this work for e.g.
> the SCMI driver which would only need to provide its own version of
> ->register_em().
>
> Thoughts?
I had exactly the same thing in mind, but was thinking of two
callbacks, to register and unregister. But yeah, we aren't going to
register for now at least :)
I wasn't sure if that should be done or not, since we also have
ready() callback. So was reluctant to suggest it earlier. But that can
work well as well.
--
viresh
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-11 9:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 91+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-10 7:36 [PATCH 0/8] cpufreq: Auto-register with energy model Viresh Kumar
2021-08-10 7:36 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-10 7:36 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-10 7:36 ` [PATCH 1/8] cpufreq: Auto-register with energy model if asked Viresh Kumar
2021-08-10 9:36 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-08-10 9:38 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-10 15:33 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-08-10 7:36 ` [PATCH 2/8] cpufreq: dt: Use auto-registration for energy model Viresh Kumar
2021-08-10 10:19 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-08-10 7:36 ` [PATCH 3/8] cpufreq: imx6q: " Viresh Kumar
2021-08-10 7:36 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-10 10:20 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-08-10 10:20 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-08-10 7:36 ` [PATCH 4/8] cpufreq: mediatek: " Viresh Kumar
2021-08-10 7:36 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-10 7:36 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-10 10:20 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-08-10 10:20 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-08-10 10:20 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-08-10 7:36 ` [PATCH 5/8] cpufreq: omap: " Viresh Kumar
2021-08-10 10:24 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-08-10 7:36 ` [PATCH 6/8] cpufreq: qcom-cpufreq-hw: " Viresh Kumar
2021-08-10 10:26 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-08-10 7:36 ` [PATCH 7/8] cpufreq: scpi: " Viresh Kumar
2021-08-10 7:36 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-10 10:27 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-08-10 10:27 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-08-11 2:40 ` Sudeep Holla
2021-08-11 2:40 ` Sudeep Holla
2021-08-10 7:36 ` [PATCH 8/8] cpufreq: vexpress: " Viresh Kumar
2021-08-10 7:36 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-10 10:05 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-08-10 10:05 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-08-10 10:06 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-10 10:06 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-10 10:11 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-08-10 10:11 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-08-10 10:12 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-10 10:12 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-10 10:30 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-08-10 10:30 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-08-11 2:40 ` Sudeep Holla
2021-08-11 2:40 ` Sudeep Holla
2021-08-10 9:17 ` [PATCH 0/8] cpufreq: Auto-register with " Lukasz Luba
2021-08-10 9:17 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-08-10 9:17 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-08-10 9:27 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-10 9:27 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-10 9:27 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-10 9:35 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-08-10 9:35 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-08-10 9:35 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-08-10 12:35 ` Quentin Perret
2021-08-10 12:35 ` Quentin Perret
2021-08-10 12:35 ` Quentin Perret
2021-08-10 13:25 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-08-10 13:25 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-08-10 13:25 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-08-10 13:53 ` Quentin Perret
2021-08-10 13:53 ` Quentin Perret
2021-08-10 13:53 ` Quentin Perret
2021-08-11 5:18 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-11 5:18 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-11 5:18 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-11 5:34 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-11 5:34 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-11 5:34 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-11 9:48 ` Quentin Perret
2021-08-11 9:48 ` Quentin Perret
2021-08-11 9:48 ` Quentin Perret
2021-08-11 9:53 ` Viresh Kumar [this message]
2021-08-11 9:53 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-11 9:53 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-11 10:12 ` Quentin Perret
2021-08-11 10:12 ` Quentin Perret
2021-08-11 10:12 ` Quentin Perret
2021-08-11 10:14 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-11 10:14 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-11 10:14 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-11 8:37 ` Quentin Perret
2021-08-11 8:37 ` Quentin Perret
2021-08-11 8:37 ` Quentin Perret
2021-08-11 9:13 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-11 9:13 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-11 9:13 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-11 9:34 ` Quentin Perret
2021-08-11 9:34 ` Quentin Perret
2021-08-11 9:34 ` Quentin Perret
2021-08-11 9:36 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-11 9:36 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-08-11 9:36 ` Viresh Kumar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210811095311.e6wnma2ubkqdtuic@vireshk-i7 \
--to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=agross@kernel.org \
--cc=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
--cc=cristian.marussi@arm.com \
--cc=festevam@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel@pengutronix.de \
--cc=khilman@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-imx@nxp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukasz.luba@arm.com \
--cc=matthias.bgg@gmail.com \
--cc=qperret@google.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=s.hauer@pengutronix.de \
--cc=shawnguo@kernel.org \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.donnefort@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.