On Friday 16 Oct 2020 at 14:50:29 (+0200), Daniel Lezcano wrote:

On 16/10/2020 14:18, Quentin Perret wrote:

quoted

On Friday 16 Oct 2020 at 13:48:33 (+0200), Daniel Lezcano wrote:

quoted

If the SCMI is returning abstract numbers, the thermal IPA governor will
use these numbers as a reference to mitigate the temperature at the
specified sustainable power which is expressed in mW in the DT. So it
does not work and we can not detect such conflict.

That is why I'm advocating to keep mW for the energy model and make the
SCMI and DT power numbers incompatible.

I think it's fair to say SCMI-provided number should only be compared to
other SCMI-provided numbers, so +1 on that. But what I don't understand
is why specifying the EM in mW helps with that?

It is already specified in mW. I'm just saying to not add the
'scale'/'abstract'/'bogoWatt' in the documentation.

quoted

Can we not let the providers specify the unit? 

Yes, it is possible but the provider must give the 'unit' and the energy
model must store this information along with the "power" numbers, so we
can compare apple with apple.

Today, the energy model is using the mW unit only and the providers are
not telling the 'unit', so both are missing.

Because both are missing, it does not make sense to talk about
'abstract' values in the energy model documentation until the above is
fixed.

Right, so that sounds like a reasonable way forward with this series.

Lukasz would you be able to re-spin this with a first patch that allows
the EM provider to specify a unit? And perhaps we could use Doug's idea
for the sustained power DT binding and allow specifying a unit
explicitly there too, so we're sure to compare apples with apples.

Thanks,
Quentin