On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 13:49, Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> As mentioned in response to patch 1/3. The fist patch would create MC > >> domain, something different than Energy Model or EAS. The decisions in > >> the scheduler would be different. > >> > >> I can merge 1/3 and 3/3 if you like, though. > > > > I understand now that their independent. Still, they are part of one > > goal to tune the scheduler for Exynos platform. Splitting these looks > > too much, like enabling multiple drivers one after another. > > > > However if you provide numbers for each of cases (before patches, multi > > core scheduler, energy model with DTS), then I see benefit of splitting > > it. Each commit would have its own rationale. I am not sure if it is > > worth such investigation - that's just defconfig... distros might ignore > > it anyway. > > Good point, and I agree that it would require more investigation, for > which unfortunately I don't have currently spare cycles. > > Should I merge patch 1/3 and 3/3 and send the v2 with a cover letter > which would have the test results? Yes, let's do this way. Thanks for working on this! Best regards, Krzysztof
