On 06/02/2018 05:28, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 05-02-18, 11:32, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 05/02/2018 05:17, Viresh Kumar wrote: >>> Right, but I thought the cooling-maps can help us specify different cooling >>> states for different cooling devices for the same trip point. Maybe my >>> understanding of that is incorrect. > > Any inputs on this? I am still wondering if this can be done.
Can you give an example? Or your understanding is incorrect or I missed the point. >> At the first glance, it sounds interesting but I'm afraid that raises >> more corner-cases than it solves because we have to take into account >> all the combinations: cpuidle=0 && cpufreq=1, cpuidle=1 && cpufreq=0, >> cpuidle=1 && cpufreq=1 with dynamic code changes when the cpufreq driver >> is loaded/unloaded. >> >> I'm not against this approach as well as merging all the cpu cooling >> devices into a single one but that won't be trivial and will need >> several iterations before reaching this level of features. >> >> IMO, we should keep the current approach (but handle the cpufreq >> loading/unloading) and then iteratively merge all the cooling device >> into a single one with policy change at runtime which will automatically >> handle the cpufreq load/unload. > > Surely we can do one thing at a time if that's the way we choose to do it. Easy to say :) The current code is to introduce the feature without impacting the DT bindings in order to keep focused on the thermal mitigation aspect. There are still a lot of improvements to do after that. You are basically asking me to implement the copy-on-write before the memory management is complete. -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
