Hi Daniel, On Thursday 28 Mar 2019 at 18:27:49 (+0100), Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 28/03/2019 11:22, Quentin Perret wrote: > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > >> index 2d9c39033c1a..3c09bdaaefd3 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > >> @@ -97,6 +97,7 @@ CONFIG_XEN=y > >> CONFIG_COMPAT=y > >> CONFIG_HIBERNATION=y > >> CONFIG_WQ_POWER_EFFICIENT_DEFAULT=y > >> +CONFIG_ENERGY_MODEL=n > > > > Hmm, sorry I turned this to '=n' for testing and forgot to update the > > patch. This obviously should be '=y' ... > > I did a test without the ENERGY_MODEL config option set, dhrystone and > the power_allocator policy on the hikey. The board did not mitigate well > and ended up rebooting.
OK ... And is the same thing happening if you just run mainline w/o the dynamic-power-coefficient binding set for example ? The result _should_ be the same. If not, then perhaps I missed something. I'll try to reproduce on my end. Just to be sure, when you say hikey, you mean hikey960 ? Or 620 ? In any case, thanks for testing :-) > May be the cpu cooling Kconfig option should add > a SELECT or a DEPENDS on ENERGY_MODEL ? Right, I've been wondering the same thing. I'm not a big fan of 'select' because enabling ENERGY_MODEL automatically for the thermal stuff will also happen to enable other things (EAS) without the user knowing. So I'd rather keep the ENERGY_MODEL option explicit. But perhaps having THERMAL_GOV_POWER_ALLOCATOR 'depend on ENERGY_MODEL' could work. It's just that there is no _strong_ dependency, the IPA code isn't supposed to crash even if there is no EM ... Thanks, Quentin
