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

From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
To: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@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, festevam@gmail.com,
	Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com, robh@kernel.org,
	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, mgorman@suse.de,
	daniel@ffwll.ch, 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,
	patrick.bellasi@matbug.net, ionela.voinescu@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] PM / EM: and devices to Energy Model
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 16:20:49 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <453034e5-f7b9-20f7-4e26-5d0d7164edd1@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200120152804.GB164543@google.com>

On 1/20/20 3:28 PM, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Monday 20 Jan 2020 at 15:53:35 (+0100), Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> Would be really nice if this wouldn't be required. We should really aim
>> for 1 framework == 1 set of interfaces.
>>
>> What happens if someone calls em_get_pd() on a CPU EM?
>>
>> E.g:
>>
>>   static struct perf_domain *pd_init(int cpu)
>>   {
>> -       struct em_perf_domain *obj = em_cpu_get(cpu);
>> +       struct device *dev = get_cpu_device(cpu);
>> +       struct em_perf_domain *obj = em_pd_get(dev);
>>          struct perf_domain *pd;
>>
>> Two versions of one functionality will confuse API user from the
>> beginning ...
> 
> Agreed, this looks a bit confusing. It should be trivial to make
> em_dev_get() (or whatever we end up calling it) work for CPUs too,
> though. And we could always have a em_cpu_get(int cpu) API that is a
> basically a wrapper around em_dev_get() for convenience.

The problem not only here is that we have a CPU index 'int cpu'
and if we ask for device like:

struct device *dev = get_cpu_device(cpu);

It might be not the same device that was used during the
registration, when we had i.e. 4 CPUs for the same policy:

int cpu_id = cpumask_first(policy->cpus);
struct device *cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(cpu_id);
em_register_perf_domain(cpu_dev, nr_opp, &em_cb);

That's why the em_cpu_get() is different than em_get_pd(), mainly by:
if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, em_span_cpus(em_pd)))

It won't be simple wrapper, let me think how it could be handled
differently than it is now.

Regards,
Lukasz

> 
> Thanks,
> Quentin
> 

_______________________________________________
Linux-mediatek mailing list
Linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek