On Friday 08 Jun 2018 at 11:36:13 (+0200), Juri Lelli wrote: > On 08/06/18 09:25, Quentin Perret wrote: > > Hi Dietmar, > > > > On Thursday 07 Jun 2018 at 17:55:32 (+0200), Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > > [...] > > > > IMHO, part of the problem why this might be harder to understand is the > > > fact > > > that the patches show the use of the 2. init call > > > 'em_rescale_cpu_capacity()' but not the 1. one > > > 'em_register_freq_domain()'. > > > I guess that Quentin wanted to keep the set as small as possible. > > > > Yes, this is confusing. I'm now starting to think that patch 10/10 should > > probably not be part of this patch-set, especially if I don't provide > > the patches registering the freq domains from the CPUFreq drivers. And > > it's the only "Arm-specific" patch in this arch-independent patch-set. > > > > So I think I'll drop patch 10/10 for v4 ... That part should be > > discussed separately, with the rest of the Arm-specific changes. > > Mmm, I would actually vote to at least have one example showing how and > where the em_register_freq_domain() is going to be used. I had to look > at the repo you referenced since I think it's quite fundamental piece to > understand the design, IMHO.
Hmmm I see your point. OK, having an example will help. I'll keep patch 10/10 and add an other one tweaking cpufreq-dt to give an example. But I'll mark the two as OPTIONAL. I really hope we can reach an agreement on the core design ideas before discussing too much the details on the driver side. There are several valid places where em_register_freq_domain() can be called. But the exact way of doing so will be platform-dependent, and driver-dependent, so let's agree on what we want to know from the drivers first :-) Thanks, Quentin