Hi, On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 5:54 AM Quentin Perret <qperret@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Monday 02 Nov 2020 at 08:54:38 (+0000), Lukasz Luba wrote: > > Gentle ping to Quentin and Daniel for sharing opinion on this patch set. > > If you are OK, then I could use this as a base for next work. > > One or two small nits, but overall this LGTM. Thanks Lukasz. > > > As you probably know I am working also on 'sustainable power' estimation > > which could be used when there is no DT value but it comes from FW. > > That would meet requirement from Doug, when the DT cannot be used, > > but we have sustainable levels from FW [1]. > > Cool, and also, I'd be happy to hear from Doug if passing the sustained > power via sysfs is good enough for his use-case in the meantime? It does sound like sysfs could be made to work for us, but it's definitely a workaround. If the normal way to set these values was through sysfs then it would be fine, but I think most people expect that these values are just setup properly by the kernel. That means anyone using our board with a different userspace (someone running upstream on it) would need to figure out what mechanism they were going to use to program them. There's very little advantage here compared to a downstream patch that just violates official upstream policy by putting something bogoWatts based in the device tree. My current plan of record (which I don't love) is basically: 1. Before devices are in consumer's hands, accept bogoWatts numbers in our downstream kernel. 2. Once devices are in consumers hands, run the script I sent out to generate some numbers and post them upstream. If, at some point, there's a better solution then I'll switch to it, but until then that seems workable even if it makes me grumpy. -Doug
