On 06/02/2018 05:28, Viresh Kumar wrote:

On 05-02-18, 11:32, Daniel Lezcano wrote:

quoted

On 05/02/2018 05:17, Viresh Kumar wrote:

quoted

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.

quoted

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