Re: [PATCH 0/8] cpufreq: Auto-register with energy model

[Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>]

On 10-08-21, 10:17, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> Hi Viresh,
> 
> I like the idea, only small comments here in the cover letter.
> 
> On 8/10/21 8:36 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > Provide a cpufreq driver flag so drivers can ask the cpufreq core to register
> > with the EM core on their behalf. This allows us to get rid of duplicated code
> > in the drivers and fix the unregistration part as well, which none of the
> > drivers have done until now.
> 
> The EM is never freed for CPUs by design. The unregister function was
> introduced for devfreq devices.

I see. So if a cpufreq driver unregisters and registers again, it will
be required to use the entries created by the registration itself,
right ? Technically speaking, it is better to unregister and free any
related resources and parse everything again.

Lets say, just for fun, I want to test two copies of a cpufreq driver
(providing different set of freq-tables). I build both of them as
modules, insert the first version, remove it, insert the second one.
Ideally, this should just work as expected. But I don't think it will
in this case as you never parse the EM stuff again.

Again, since the routine is there already, I think it is better/fine
to just use it.

> > This would also make the registration with EM core to happen only after policy
> > is fully initialized, and the EM core can do other stuff from in there, like
> > marking frequencies as inefficient (WIP). Though this patchset is useful without
> > that work being done and should be merged nevertheless.
> > 
> > This doesn't update scmi cpufreq driver for now as it is a special case and need
> > to be handled differently. Though we can make it work with this if required.
> 
> The scmi cpufreq driver uses direct EM API, which provides flexibility
> and should stay as is.

Right, so I left it as is for now.

-- 
viresh