On 14-01-2014 00:17, Wei Ni wrote: > On 01/14/2014 05:33 AM, Eduardo Valentin wrote: >> * PGP Signed by an unknown key >> >> On 13-01-2014 15:01, Matthew Longnecker wrote: >>> On 1/13/2014 7:42 AM, Eduardo Valentin wrote: >>>>> This serie can support to turn governor for thermal zone in >>>>> run time. >>>> >>>> Can you please explain why this is needed? Are you facing troubles with >>>> current way to switch governors? If yes, can you please report them? >> >> Looks like there is a need to switch governors from within kernel code, >> but not explanation of use cases is provided. > > In fact, with the of-thermal framework, the driver can't initialize to > any governor, even default governor, it may be a bug. As we discussed in > other mail list, we should not set governor in DT, and I think the > platform driver should be able to set to any governors which it want, so > I this patch, the driver can call the thermal_update_governor() to > switch to new governor in kernel space. > For example, there have two thermal driver, using of-thermal to register > thermal zone device. One want to set to step_wise governor, another want > fair_share, how can we do? I think after they calling the > thermal_zone_of_sensor_register(), they can call the > thermal_update_governor() to set the governor which they want. > >> >>>> >>> >>> .... >>> >>>>> Adds thermal_update_governor() function, so the thermal platform >>>>> driver can use it to update governor. >>>> >>>> Here I cannot see why the platform driver would need to update a >>>> governor, instead of a zone. Platform drivers are not supposed to be >>>> aware of governors. For updating a zone we already have an API for that, >>>> please check documentation. >>>> >>> >>> I think we have a miscommunication. The purpose of >>> thermal_update_governor is to *switch* governors at runtime (from within >>> the kernel). >>> >>> Wei has used the term "update" in the sense of switch rather than >>> "update" in the sense used by thermal_zone_device_update. >> >> Fine, but why do you need it? > > Yes, I have consider to use "switch", but As my commit in the patch, in > the future, the governor may be more complex, it may need governor > parameter/configuration, and need to be tuned in run-time or in > initialization. OK, I see you have a very complex governor coming. But you know, prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future. :-) It would be very constructive if you could share the governor together with the proposed change. It is not fair to introduce a new API for a non-existing user, don't you agree? > In fact we develop a new governor, based on PID logic. It will need some > parameters, such as proportional, integral and derivative. these value > will be initialized in different values for different thermal zone, so > we want to use the thermal_zone_device_update() to switch governor or > update the governor's parameters for different thermal zone. The parameters are a zone specific data right? Why should it be bound to governor switch? The governor should be able to fetch the zone data when needed. Again, if you share the user of the API you are proposing we can work together to make a better fit between API and users. For the existing governors, I don't see a need to have the stop and start callbacks. > >> >>> >>> Eduardo, what is your recommended technique for setting the governor of >>> a thermal zone device created via device tree? >> >> So far the recommended (and existing) way is by user(land) decision. >> >>> >>> thanks, >>> Matt >>> >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in >>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- You have got to be excited about what you are doing. (L. Lamport) Eduardo Valentin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
