Hi,

On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 5:54 AM Quentin Perret [off-list ref] wrote:

On Monday 02 Nov 2020 at 08:54:38 (+0000), Lukasz Luba wrote:

quoted

Gentle ping to Quentin and Daniel for sharing opinion on this patch set.
If you are OK, then I could use this as a base for next work.

One or two small nits, but overall this LGTM. Thanks Lukasz.

quoted

As you probably know I am working also on 'sustainable power' estimation
which could be used when there is no DT value but it comes from FW.
That would meet requirement from Doug, when the DT cannot be used,
but we have sustainable levels from FW [1].

Cool, and also, I'd be happy to hear from Doug if passing the sustained
power via sysfs is good enough for his use-case in the meantime?

It does sound like sysfs could be made to work for us, but it's
definitely a workaround.  If the normal way to set these values was
through sysfs then it would be fine, but I think most people expect
that these values are just setup properly by the kernel.  That means
anyone using our board with a different userspace (someone running
upstream on it) would need to figure out what mechanism they were
going to use to program them.  There's very little advantage here
compared to a downstream patch that just violates official upstream
policy by putting something bogoWatts based in the device tree.

My current plan of record (which I don't love) is basically:

1. Before devices are in consumer's hands, accept bogoWatts numbers in
our downstream kernel.

2. Once devices are in consumers hands, run the script I sent out to
generate some numbers and post them upstream.

If, at some point, there's a better solution then I'll switch to it,
but until then that seems workable even if it makes me grumpy.


-Doug

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