On 16-11-20, 11:33, Lukasz Luba wrote: > On 11/9/20 6:57 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 06-11-20, 11:14, Lukasz Luba wrote: > > > I also had similar doubts, because if we make frequency requests > > > independently for each CPU, why not having N cooling devs, which > > > will set independently QoS max freq for them... > > > > > > What convinced me: > > > EAS and FIE would know the 'real' frequency of the cluster, IPA > > > can use it also and have only one cooling device per cluster. > > > > > > We would like to keep this old style 'one cooling device per cpuset'. > > > I don't have strong opinion and if it would appear that there are > > > some errors in freq estimation for cluster, then maybe it does make > > > more sense to have cdev per CPU... > > > > Let me rephrase my question. What is it that doesn't work _correctly_ > > with cdev per cpufreq policy in your case? What doesn't work well if > > the thermal stuff keeps looking at only the related_cpus thing and not > > the cpu-perf-dependencies thing? > > > > We don't have a platform which would be this per-cpu freq request, yet. > Thus it's hard to answer your question. The EAS would work in 'old > style' - cluster mode. I don't know how IPA would work on such HW > and SW configuration. To figure this out I need a real platform. Hmm, so who are going to be the users of this new stuff (dependent CPUs) ? I don't think cpufreq-cooling should be updated, unless there is a compelling reason to. The other one in energy model ? Why does it need this information ? Who else ? -- viresh
