[PATCH v3 0/2] thermal: mediatek: Add cpu power cooling model

[dawei chien]

On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 17:40 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 02-11-15, 18:46, dawei chien wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 21:14 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > Sorry for being extremely late in reviewing this stuff. You are
> > > already on v3 and I haven't reviewed it once. Mostly due to bad timing
> > > of my holidays and other work pressure.
> > 
> > You're welcome, truly thank you for your kindly reviewing
> 
> Thanks for understanding.
> 
> > > Now, there are few things that I feel are not properly addressed here,
> > > and I may be wrong:
> > > - Where are the bindings for static-power-points and
> > >   dynamic-power-coefficient. Sorry I failed to see them in this or
> > >   other series you mentioned.
> > 
> > Please refer to following document (2-1,2-2) for dynamic-power &
> > static-power in detail. Besides, do I need to add another document for
> > our own MT8173 IC.
> > http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/Documentation/thermal/cpu-cooling-api.txt
> 
> That's about the power-API, but I am talking about the Device Tree
> bindings here. So, when you add any new DT bindings (Or a new property
> in device tree blobs), you need to add its documentation in
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/... and get it approved by DT
> maintainers as well. You perhaps missed that completely, otherwise you
> would have been told really early that the new bindings aren't going
> to help.

Thank you for your kindly explaining, now I could understand what I
miss, I will send device tree binding on next version such like
following description.

--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/mt8173-cpu-dvfs.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/mt8173-cpu-dvfs.txt
@@ -10,6 +10,17 @@ Required properties:
        Please refer to
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clk/clock-bindings.txt for
        generic clock consumer properties.
 - proc-supply: Regulator for Vproc of CPU cluster.
+- dynamic-power-coefficient:
+       Usage: optional
+       Value type: <prop-encoded-array>
+       Definition: A u32 value that represents an indicative
+       running time dynamic power coefficient in
+       fundamental units of mW/MHz/uVolt^2.
+       The dynamic energy consumption of the CPU
+       is proportional to the square of the
+       Voltage (V) and the clock frequency (f).
+       Pdyn = dynamic-power-coefficient * V^2 * f
+       where voltage is in uV, frequency is in MHz.

> > > - Even then, why should we be adding another table into DT for
> > >   voltage/power ? And not reuse and extend the opp-v2 stuff which is
> > >   already mainlined now.
> > 
> > We could reuse opp-v2 for static power points after OPPV2 back port to
> > our currently branch.
> 
> Your current branch doesn't matter to us. All that matters here is
> mainline, that's where you are adding code to. And you must test your
> stuff on the latest upstream branch only, not on some old kernel
> release. You can include other dependency patches though, that are
> required to make it work and mention them in cover-letter.

Thank you for your kindly explaining, Now I know I should develop and
test on mainline branch since this is where I try to add code.

However, please understanding currently mt8173_cpufreq.c is not ready
for OPPV2 in mainline as far, that's the reason why currently I can't
reuse OPPV2 and extend for static power table. My propose is for adding
CPU cooling device for our own product.

Actually, I would like to remove static power table on next patch since
static power is optional and dynamic power is much more than static
power.

> > However, as far as I know, there is no "power" in opp.c (suck like
> 
> s/suck/such ?
> 
> > opp-hz) as far, so I need to add something in opp.c for my purpose, suck
> > like add power in _opp_add_static_v2, and add something for return
> > "power", right? I may be wrong, please kindly give me your suggestion,
> > thank you.
> 
> You first need to propose a change in DT bindings for OPPs:
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt
> 
> And then we can change the code properly.
> 
> > Actually, I am considering to remove the part of static power point
> > since it is optional for Power Model. Could you agree with this?
> 
> If its not important for your platform, then I don't have any issues
> with that..
>