Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Clarify abstract scale usage for power values in Energy Model, EAS and IPA

[Lukasz Luba]

On 10/16/20 2:09 PM, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Friday 16 Oct 2020 at 14:50:29 (+0200), Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > On 16/10/2020 14:18, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > On Friday 16 Oct 2020 at 13:48:33 (+0200), Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > > 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.
> >
> > > 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.

Do you mean a new entry in DT which will be always below
'dynamic-power-coefficient' and/or 'sustainable-power' saying the unit
of above value?

There was discussion with Rob (and Doug) about this. I got the
impression he was against any new DT stuff [1].
We don't have to, I think we all agree that DT will only support mW.

I have agreed to this idea having a 'flag' inside EM [2], which
indicates the mW or bogoWatts. It could be set via API:
em_dev_register_perf_domain() and this new last argument.

I can write that patch. There is only two usage (3rd is on LKML) of
that function. The DT way, which is via:
dev_pm_opp_of_register_em() will always set 'true';
Driver direct calls of em_dev_register_perf_domain(), will have to
set appropriate value ('true' or 'false'). The EM struct em_perf_domain
will have the new bool field set based on that.
Is it make sense?

Regards,
Lukasz

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAL_JsqJ=brfbLiTm9D+p2N0Az-gcStbYj=RS2EaG50dHo0-5WA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
[2] 
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/3e3dd42c-48ac-7267-45c5-ca88205611bd@xxxxxxx/

> Thanks,
> Quentin