On Tuesday 10 Aug 2021 at 13:06:47 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote: > Provide a cpufreq driver flag so drivers can ask the cpufreq core to register > with the EM core on their behalf. Hmm, that's not quite what this does. This asks the cpufreq core to use *PM_OPP* to register an EM, which I think is kinda wrong to do from there IMO. The decision to use PM_OPP or another mechanism to register an EM belongs to platform specific code (drivers), so it is odd for the PM_OPP registration to have its own cpufreq flag but not the other ways. As mentioned in another thread, the very reason to have PM_EM is to not depend on PM_OPP, so I'm worried about the direction of travel with this series TBH. > This allows us to get rid of duplicated code > in the drivers and fix the unregistration part as well, which none of the > drivers have done until now. This series adds more code than it removes, and the unregistration is not a fix as we don't ever remove the EM tables by design, so not sure either of these points are valid arguments. > This would also make the registration with EM core to happen only after policy > is fully initialized, and the EM core can do other stuff from in there, like > marking frequencies as inefficient (WIP). Though this patchset is useful without > that work being done and should be merged nevertheless. > > This doesn't update scmi cpufreq driver for now as it is a special case and need > to be handled differently. Though we can make it work with this if required. Note that we'll have more 'special cases' if other architectures start using PM_EM, which is what we have been trying to allow since the beginning, so that's worth keeping in mind. Thanks, Quentin
