On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 13:49, Lukasz Luba [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

As mentioned in response to patch 1/3. The fist patch would create MC
domain, something different than Energy Model or EAS. The decisions in
the scheduler would be different.

I can merge 1/3 and 3/3 if you like, though.

I understand now that their independent. Still, they are part of one
goal to tune the scheduler for Exynos platform. Splitting these looks
too much, like enabling multiple drivers one after another.

However if you provide numbers for each of cases (before patches, multi
core scheduler, energy model with DTS), then I see benefit of splitting
it.  Each commit would have its own rationale.  I am not sure if it is
worth such investigation - that's just defconfig... distros might ignore
it anyway.

Good point, and I agree that it would require more investigation, for
which unfortunately I don't have currently spare cycles.

Should I merge patch 1/3 and 3/3 and send the v2 with a cover letter
which would have the test results?

Yes, let's do this way.

Thanks for working on this!

Best regards,
Krzysztof

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel