On Thursday 28 Mar 2019 at 20:51:12 (+0100), Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 28/03/2019 18:42, Quentin Perret wrote: > > 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. > > Right, it is the same.
OK. > > > 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 :-) > > hikey620 > > >> 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 ... > > Given if the ENERGY_MODEL is not set there is a regression we should add > the dependency IMO. Right, that is true. And there are folks who don't use the arm64 defconfig downstream, so I guess we need to make it clear for them they need to enable ENERGY_MODEL from now on. I'll add a 'depends on ENERGY_MODEL' to 'THERMAL_GOV_POWER_ALLOCATOR' in patch 3 for v2. Thanks, Quentin