linguini1 commented on PR #18266:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18266#issuecomment-3841240662

   > The verification of this PR power consumption benefit requires a testing 
environment where Android and Nuttx communicate and interact via RPMsg UORB. 
Usually, this is an integrated testing environment, and this data cannot be 
obtained through just unit testing. Therefore, we prefer to conduct unit 
testing verification, such as the above UORB listener.
   
   I don't understand this explanation, sorry. If verification of the power 
consumption benefit is too difficult to test, then how does the author of the 
PR know there is a 20-30% improvement?
   
   > Please carefully review and focus on the modifications made to the patch 
itself, rather than constantly making demands: provide test code. Because after 
you thoroughly read the patch, you will find that the internal explanations 
have already clarified why power consumption can be reduced, and the code 
already has corresponding explanations:(avoid wakeup to savepower)
   > 
   > ```
   >   /* There are several scenarios that require broadcasting:
   >    * 1. If the proxy corresponding to the EPT (Endpoint) did not
   >    *    exist previously, this constitutes the first broadcast.
   >    * 2. If the proxy previously had a wakeup attribute, it should
   >    *    be broadcast every time.
   >    * 3. If the proxy does not have the wakeup attribute and the
   >    *    target core is in the running state, we should still broadcast
   >    *    it.
   >    *
   >    * In summary, Let's avoid broadcasting non-wakeup sensors when the
   >    * target core is in a sleep state to prevent unnecessary wakeups.
   >    */
   > ```
   
   Thank you, I did see these comments. I know what the patch says and what the 
comments say. I see that the code also avoid extra wakeups. This doesn't matter 
if you're going to claim 20-30% improvement. Where does that number come from? 
How do you know? The comments and the code do no provide enough information to 
conclude a 20-30% improvement. The reason I asked for those logs is because I 
genuinely believe that there is no basis for a "20-30%" improvement and that 
those numbers are AI generated, and I am tired of AI-generated claims.
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to