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=-11.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL 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 3EC25C43467 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:04:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CECE82225D for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:04:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="UKAndxXH" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2389236AbgJOPES (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Oct 2020 11:04:18 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34458 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2388892AbgJOPES (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Oct 2020 11:04:18 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-x444.google.com (mail-wr1-x444.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::444]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89211C0613D3 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 08:04:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x444.google.com with SMTP id y12so3904876wrp.6 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 08:04:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=aM2rdd0kq3Z2pAcYt+iHv5sB+JPN3rjkl3TpYzl6xyc=; b=UKAndxXHYto5P21FGeL51//alyDJpo5kZPud/VLYgQq0N3AMkjZx8Lk2sctmT6dujy /DDzUg4xNokRkcYSOd8r8Ee3li5lhs1pZ35KRRkW2GSVSxLbf9PhvDGkMNoEnxDpk1pS ZouASX6HTudRFi7bf7AIaEeIumeQzIkdRy1tK40IGjIw+H2s2t5aQu7x4vrGhJDASE9r LYOzTGJWt6uH6EPhzDgWKDHHBzAQNnAP/SJQB661E2Umc1emtvMLwDs4BQq/sGSf27M0 lSkPoyj9JDnHWxgP5YNEr9V2NXKGYbCxUrsIUqcZYDqArO7afYzxk79A3I1tjVzOAgc5 zNRw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=aM2rdd0kq3Z2pAcYt+iHv5sB+JPN3rjkl3TpYzl6xyc=; b=meIkquNzpEYWrNl1JTkc/X/3oQHiW4LUtsIWwvLPJAyklJlwis82zVf8WldynD5IiY BpDo9V1Sg52EI3sEsSIZesM1hkmBaefD4XswXPJb86Lg4pBxmd/iyg5p7eujsKlg2QUs ogIknPLLFDXPU14oldVr54c7oDRXHNs9l7oYF9v1/Etr7QFJt2BL7bT11EAF+ZgKW/cW 8SRZM1iUnkJd//jYkfvA02fmz/M6KBqx+Ho2qYCTTF7juUNypi77w+lTcyC+2Ov+x6p9 r06QPM+998qbdrqW9h9EjdE6b09L5jsriXIwqNq5XjkRAf0fCXG6bifuCSRv6CHFo+jb uWkQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5307JxWwS2KVAiWMPvaaBJRmXiK1mj6suG7QFUxAev+Rd1SZyKvM RWStVHdxtO1Gc6zUzzBGosDctQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxJMiuBO2wfbeo+8BN1kdMoWtXi/rlDqTUmwuk2W5nU946ZQ42veLZHYl+13YOi4BDx41lOig== X-Received: by 2002:adf:ce0b:: with SMTP id p11mr4801689wrn.318.1602774255908; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 08:04:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2a00:79e0:d:110:f693:9fff:fef4:a7ef]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w4sm4612378wmi.10.2020.10.15.08.04.15 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 15 Oct 2020 08:04:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 16:04:11 +0100 From: Quentin Perret To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Daniel Lezcano , Lukasz Luba , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux PM , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Rob Herring , Amit Kucheria , Jonathan Corbet , Dietmar Eggemann , Doug Anderson , Matthias Kaehlcke , "Nayak, Rajendra" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Clarify abstract scale usage for power values in Energy Model, EAS and IPA Message-ID: <20201015150411.GA1859176@google.com> References: <20201002114426.31277-1-lukasz.luba@arm.com> <765e6603-b614-fb72-64ff-248b42474803@linaro.org> <55d3fb0f-f7d8-63c5-2bdb-53eaa62380e0@linaro.org> <3e3dd42c-48ac-7267-45c5-ca88205611bd@arm.com> <00ceec64-3273-bb4a-6f38-22de8d877ab5@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 15 Oct 2020 at 15:40:16 (+0200), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 12:22 PM Daniel Lezcano > wrote: > > > > On 15/10/2020 11:00, Lukasz Luba wrote: > > > > [ ... ] > > > > >> There is the SCMI and the DT. Because there are two sources where it is > > >> impossible to know if they are using the same units, we are stuck to > > >> ensure a consistency for the kernel. > > >> > > >> The platform should use: > > >> - the SCMI only (scaled or real) > > >> - the DT only (real) > > >> [ - the firmware file only (scaled or real) ] > > >> > > > > > > Do you mean by SCMI - registration using em_dev_register_perf_domain() ? > > > > It was high level description, but yes, I guess it is the case. > > > > >> As it is not possible to know if they are scaled or real, there is no > > >> choice except making them mutually exclusive. > > > > > > So you propose a bit more restriction in registration EM, to not get > > > lost in the future. I also have these doubts. Let's consider it and > > > maybe agree. > > > > > > I've recommended Qcom to use em_dev_register_perf_domain() when they > > > have this obfuscated power values. Then any developer in the future > > > who wants to add EM for a new device on that platform, should use the > > > em_dev_register_perf_domain(). > > > > > > In this case the flag in EM that you have proposed makes sense. > > > We probably need an argument 'bool abstract_scale' in the > > > em_dev_register_perf_domain(..., bool abstract_scale) > > > as a source of information. > > > > I was suggesting to add a flag to the em_perf_domain structure giving > > the source of the power numbers. > > > > So if the IPA is having the 'sustainable-power' set in DT but the > > em_perf_domain is flagged with power number coming from SCMI, then they > > will be incompatible, the thermal zone will fail to register. > > > > > > > We would allow to co-exist em_dev_register_perf_domain(..., false) > > > with dev_pm_opp_of_register_em() EM devices. > > > > > > Is it make sense? > > > > Well, it does not change my opinion. We should assume the energy model > > is always milliwatts. If the SoC vendors find a way to get around with > > bogoWatts, then good to them and up to them to deal with in the future. > > That sounds fair enough, but it also means that any kernel patches > using power units different from milliwatts for the EM should be > rejected in the future, doesn't it? > > And the existing code using different power units for the EM (if any) > should be updated/fixed accordingly, shouldn't it? > > Otherwise I don't see now this can be regarded as a hard rule. Sorry, jumping late in the discussion :) To add a bit of background to this, it's been the plan from the very beginning to make PM_EM use an abstract scale. The only reason it was not merged like that is because the first version only worked for CPUs, and IPA was using a totally different source for other devices. So we had no choice but to specify PM_EM in mW to keep things compatible and allow to transition IPA. But that is no longer true, so I'm in favor of evolving PM_EM where it was supposed to be to begin with. IMO, the only thing the kernel cares about is consistency across power numbers, but not about the exact unit. And I agree with Rafael, we have code paths in the kernel that feed data in PM_EM but _cannot_ guarantee mW, SCMI being a prime example, so I don't think it is reasonable to mandate that. Having that properly documented + an 'abstract_scale' parameter in dev_pm_opp_of_register_em() (or even a unit, which could be bogo-watts) should work IMO. What is the concern with this approach? Thanks, Quentin