From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 768C8C433E0 for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 17:19:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43F5B2177B for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 17:19:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728458AbgHERTf (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Aug 2020 13:19:35 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:33668 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728653AbgHERSG (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Aug 2020 13:18:06 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F37F230E; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 05:36:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bogus (unknown [10.37.12.53]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E18173FA1C; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 05:36:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 13:36:43 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla To: Florian Fainelli Cc: Lukasz Luba , Viresh Kumar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, cristian.marussi@arm.com, Sudeep Holla , rjw@rjwysocki.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq statistics retrieved by drivers Message-ID: <20200805123643.GB4818@bogus> References: <20200729151208.27737-1-lukasz.luba@arm.com> <20200730085333.qubrsv7ufqninihd@vireshk-mac-ubuntu> <20200730091014.GA13158@bogus> <3b3a56e9-29ec-958f-fb3b-c689a9389d2f@arm.com> <20200731155650.GC14529@bogus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 10:19:23AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > > On 7/31/2020 8:56 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 10:36:51AM +0100, Lukasz Luba wrote: > >> > >> In this case I think we would have to create debugfs. > >> Sudeep do you think these debugfs should be exposed from the protocol > >> layer: > >> drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c > > > > I prefer above over cpufreq as we can support for all the devices not > > just cpus which avoids adding similar support elsewhere(mostly devfreq) > > > >> or maybe from the cpufreq scmi driver? I would probably be safer to have > >> it in the cpufreq driver because we have scmi_handle there. > >> > > > > Cristian was thinking if we can consolidate all such debugfs under one > > device may be and that should eliminate your handle restriction. I would > > like to see how that works out in implementation but I don't have any > > better suggestion ATM. > > debugfs is not enabled in production kernels, and especially not with > Android kernels, so sticking those in sysfs like the existing cpufreq > subsystem statistics may be a better choice. Fair enough. I was suggesting that only if we can't push this into existing sysfs support. If we can, then we need not worry about it. If not, I don't want a user ABI just for SCMI for this firmware stats, I would rather keep it in debugfs for debug purposes. This will be useless once we start seeing AMU in the hardware and hence I was pushing for debugfs. -- Regards, Sudeep