Hi Rafael,

On 1/5/26 18:22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 10:44 AM Lukasz Luba [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi Changwoo,

On 12/25/25 04:01, Changwoo Min wrote:

quoted

This patch set addresses all the concerns raised at [1] to make the EM YNL spec
clearer. It includes the following changes:

- Fix the lint errors (1/4).
- Rename em.yaml to dev-energymodel.yaml (2/4).  “dev-energymodel” was used
    instead of “device-energy-model”, which was originally proposed [2], because
    the netlink protocol name cannot exceed GENL_NAMSIZ(16). In addition, docs
    strings and flags attributes were added.
- Change cpus' type from string to u64 array of CPU ids (3/4).
- Add dump to get-perf-domains in the EM YNL spec (4/4). A user can fetch
    either information about a specific performance domain with do or information
    about all performance domains with dump.

This can be tested using the tool, tools/net/ynl/pyynl/cli.py, for example,
with the following commands:

    $> tools/net/ynl/pyynl/cli.py \
       --spec Documentation/netlink/specs/dev-energymodel.yaml \
       --dump get-perf-domains
    $> tools/net/ynl/pyynl/cli.py \
       --spec Documentation/netlink/specs/dev-energymodel.yaml \
       --do get-perf-domains --json '{"perf-domain-id": 0}'
    $> tools/net/ynl/pyynl/cli.py \
       --spec Documentation/netlink/specs/dev-energymodel.yaml \
       --do get-perf-table --json '{"perf-domain-id": 0}'
    $> tools/net/ynl/pyynl/cli.py \
       --spec Documentation/netlink/specs/dev-energymodel.yaml \
       --subscribe event  --sleep 10

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAD4GDZy-aeWsiY=-ATr+Y4PzhMX71DFd_mmdMk4rxn3YG8U5GA@mail.gmail.com/ (local)
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAJZ5v0gpYQwC=1piaX-PNoyeoYJ7uw=DtAGdTVEXAsi4bnSdbA@mail.gmail.com/ (local)

My apologies, I've missed those conversations (not the best season).

So what would be the procedure here for the review?
Could Folks from netlink help here?

I will do my bit for the EM related stuff (to double-check them).

I think that it'll be good to have this in 6.19 to avoid making a
major release with an outdated EM YNL spec and I see that the review
on the net side is complete, so are there any concerns about this?

I'm sorry for delay.
I don't see concerns. It LGTM so far, I can see that there will be v2
with minor change.

Regards,
Lukasz