Re: [PATCH 0/7] Minor cleanup for thermal gov power allocator

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

Hi Lukasz,

On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 4:19 PM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Rafael,
>
> Gentle ping
>
> On 10/26/23 13:22, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10/26/23 09:54, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 9:21 PM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> The patch set does some small clean up for Intelligent Power Allocator.
> >>> Those changes are not expected to alter the general functionality.
> >>> They just
> >>> improve the code reading. Only patch 3/7 might improve the use case for
> >>> binding the governor to thermal zone (very unlikely in real products,
> >>> but
> >>> it's needed for correctness).
> >>>
> >>> The changes are based on top of current PM thermal branch, so with the
> >>> new trip points.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Lukasz
> >>>
> >>> Lukasz Luba (7):
> >>>    thermal: gov_power_allocator: Rename trip_max_desired_temperature
> >>>    thermal: gov_power_allocator: Setup trip points earlier
> >>>    thermal: gov_power_allocator: Check the cooling devices only for
> >>>      trip_max
> >>>    thermal: gov_power_allocator: Rearrange the order of variables
> >>>    thermal: gov_power_allocator: Use shorter variable when possible
> >>>    thermal: gov_power_allocator: Remove unneeded local variables
> >>>    thermal: gov_power_allocator: Clean needed variables at the beginning
> >>>
> >>>   drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c | 123 ++++++++++++++------------
> >>>   1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>
> >> The series looks good to me overall, but I'd prefer to make these
> >> changes in the 6.8 cycle, because the 6.7 merge window is around the
> >> corner and there is quite a bit of thermal material in this cycle
> >> already.
> >
> > Thanks for having a look! Yes, I agree, we can wait after the
> > merge window. It just have to be cleaned one day a bit and I postponed
> > this a few times, so no rush ;)
>
> I've seen you've created the new pm/thermal. Could you consider to take
> those in, please?

Sure, I'll get to them presumably tomorrow and if not then early next week.

> I would send some RFC on top showing the issue with reading back the CPU
> max frequency from the PM_QoS chain.

Sounds good.