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

[Lukasz Luba]

On 10/16/20 5:02 PM, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Friday 16 Oct 2020 at 15:42:57 (+0100), Lukasz Luba wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Yes, something like that.
>
> > 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.
>
> Right, I agree this is a 'nice-to-have'.
>
> > 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?
>
> I had something more complicated in mind, where units are arbitrary
> ('milliwats', 'scmi-bogowatts', ...) as that would help if units can be
> specified in the DT too, but if we don't care about that then yes I
> suppose a boolean flag should do.

Thank you Quentin for help in sorting this out.
I'll send the v3.

Regards,
Lukasz

> Thanks!
> Quentin