Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:32:27 +0100 | From | Lukasz Luba <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/4] cpu_cooling: Drop static-power related stuff |
| |
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
|  |