Re: Concerns with em.yaml YNL spec

[Changwoo Min]

On 12/16/25 00:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 4:01 PM Changwoo Min <changwoo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Let me provide the context of what has been discussed. Essentially, the
> > question is what the proper name of the netlink protocol is and its file
> > name for the energy model.
> >
> > Donald raised concerns that “em” is too cryptic, so it should be
> > “energy-model”. The following is Donald’s comment:
> >
> >
> >     “- I think the spec could have been called energy-model.yaml and the
> >      family called "energy-model" instead of "em".”
> >
> >
> > Andrew’s opinion is that it would be appropriate to limit the scope of
> > “energy-model” by adding a prefix, for example, “performance-domain-
> > energy-model”. Andrew’s comment is as follows:
> >
> >     “And a dumb question. What is an energy model? A PSE needs some level
> >     of energy model, it needs to know how much energy each PD can consume
> >     in order that it is not oversubscribed. Is the energy model generic
> >     enough that it could be used for this? Or should this energy model get
> >     a prefix to limit its scope to a performance domain? The suggested
> >     name of this file would then become something like
> >     performance-domain-energy-model.yml?”
> >
> > For me, “performance-domain-energy-model” sounds weird because the
> > performance domain is conceptually under the energy model. If adding a
> > prefix to limit the scope, it should be something like “system-energy-
> > model”, and the “system” prefix looks redundant to me.
> >
> > So, the question is what the proper name is for the energy model
> > protocol: “em”, “energy-model”, “performance-domain-energy-model”, or
> > something else?
>
> I personally would be for something like "device-energy-model", where
> "device" may mean any kind of device including CPU devices.

"device-energy-model" sounds good to me. I will prepare the patchset
using that name. Thanks a lot!

Regards,
Changwoo Min