Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: dts: rockchip: enable built-in thermal monitoring on RK3588

[Dragan Simic]

On 2024-03-01 08:51, Alexey Charkov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 10:14 AM Dragan Simic <dsimic@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
> > On 2024-03-01 06:20, Alexey Charkov wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 1:11 AM Dragan Simic <dsimic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> See, I'm not a native English speaker, but I've spent a lot of time
> > >> and effort improving my English skills.  Thus, perhaps these comments
> > >> may or may not seem like unnecessary nitpicking, depending on how much
> > >> someone pays attention to writing style in general, but I'll risk to
> > >> be annoying and state these comments anyway. :)
> > >>
> > >> The comment above could be written in a much more condensed form like
> > >> this, which would also be a bit more accurate:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>                                 /* IPA threshold, when IPA governor is
> > >> used */
> > >>
> > >> IOW, we're writing all this for someone to read later, but we should
> > >> (and can) perfectly reasonably expect some already existing background
> > >> knowledge from the readers.  In other words, we should be as concise
> > >> as possible.
> > >
> > > In fact, the power allocation governor code itself doesn't call those
> > > trips threshold or target as your suggested wording would imply.
> > > Instead, it calls them "switch on temperature" and "maximum desired
> > > temperature" [1]. Maybe we can call them that in the comments (and
> > > also avoid calling the governor IPA, because upstream code only calls
> > > it a "power allocator").
> >
> > Hmm, but "IPA" is still mentioned in exactly three places in the files
> > under drivers/thermal.  I think that warrants the use of "IPA", which
> > is also widely used pretty much everywhere.
> >
> > Perhaps a win-win would be to have only the very first of the comments
> > like this, to introduce "IPA" as an acronym:
> >
> >                                    /* Power allocator (IPA) thermal
> > governor       */
> >                                    /* switch-on point, when IPA 
> > governor
> > is used   */
>
> Yes, good point, thanks!

I'm glad that you agree. :)

> > Next, "the target temperature" is mentioned more than a few times in
> > drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c, which I believe makes the use
> > of "IPA target" perfectly valid.  Actually, let's use "IPA target
> > temperature", if you agree, to make it self descriptive.
>
> Or perhaps simply "target temperature"? Stepwise governor will also
> use this trip as its target, so it's not IPA specific, unlike the
> switch-on point.

I also had similar thoughts about the shared nature.  I agree, just
"/* target temperature */" would be fine.

> > Finally, the threshold...  Based on
> > drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c,
> > I think "IPA switch-on point" would be a good choice, which I already
> > used above in the proposed opening comment.
>
> Agreed, that sounds good to me, will reflect in the next iteration.
> Thanks for bringing it up!

Great, thanks!