Re: [PATCH 4/4] cpu_cooling: Drop static-power related stuff

[Lukasz Luba]

On 21/11/17 19:13, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 07:05:46PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > On 21/11/2017 19:00, Javi Merino wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 08:57:06AM -0800, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > As I said before, the minimal you guys (ARM and Linaro) can do is to at
> > > > least upstream the Juno code! as a reference. Come on guys?  what is
> > > > preventing you to upstream Juno model?
> > >
> > > As Ionela pointed out earlier in the thread, the cpufreq driver for Juno
> > > was not acceptable for mainline because it used platform specific code.
> > > When it was converted to cpufreq-dt, the static power was left behind
> > > because it can't be represented in device tree.  This is because there
> > > isn't a function that works for every SoC, different process nodes
> > > (among other things) will need different functions.  So it can't be just
> > > a bunch of coefficients in DT, we need a function.  Hence the callback.
> >
> > The DT could contain the coef and a compatible string for a specific
> > polynomial computation callback. I imagine we should not have a lot of
> > different equations, no ?
>
> Yeah, that would be another way of doing it. If there is no equation
> that correlates all processes, then we need a vendor specific entry, or
> a compatible string, as Daniel said.
So we have ~8 weeks (before it will vanish from mainline) to come up 
with ideas
or to show that it is needed and used by some platform.
Let's see...

Regards,
Lukasz