On 2/24/22 09:37, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 24-02-22, 09:25, Lukasz Luba wrote:
Our partners had a lot of issues with EM+EAS, because they were not
aware of the internals of EM and limitations.
We've started to name two types of EM: 'advanced' and 'simple'.
The 'simple' is the one which causes issues. Now when we contact with
partners we ask if they use 'simple' EM and see some issues in EAS.
This is a needed clarification and naming convention that we use.
Here the paragraph name is stressing the fact explicitly that
from today we have the option to provide real power measurements using
DT and it will be the 'advanced' EM.
I understand the background now, and since I am part of the same
community I can appreciate that. But being a maintainer, I have to say
that when we look at something from Upstream's point of view, we may
have to neglect/ignore the terminology used in downstream.
I understand your upstream point of view.
From what I can see, there is no advancement here, as of now. This is
a very small change where we are getting pre-evaluated power values
from DT, instead of calculating them at runtime. The data may be more
correct, but the EM doesn't get advanced because of that. And so using
such terminology is only going to harm further. If EM gets a
"advanced" algorithm later on, which can improve things, then yes we
can call it advanced, but for now there is nothing.
Fair enough, I'll drop this word from the paragraph name.
