linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/5] s3cmci: cpufreq support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 12 Oct 2008 10:58:42 +0200
From:	Pierre Ossman <drzeus-mmc@...eus.cx>
To:	Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/5] s3cmci: cpufreq support

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:32:23 +0100
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org> wrote:

> +	host = container_of(nb, struct s3cmci_host, freq_transition);
> +	newclk = clk_get_rate(host->clk);
> +	mmc = host->mmc;
> +
> +	if ((val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && host->clk_rate > newclk) ||
> +	    (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && host->clk_rate < newclk)) {

Isn't this backwards? The goal should be to avoid overclocking the
card, so if the old clock (which I assume is clk_rate) is slower than
the new clock (newclk), then we should adjust before the change happens,
temporarily underclocking the card.

(and vice versa for when the old clock is faster than the new clock)

-- 
     -- Pierre Ossman

  Linux kernel, MMC maintainer        http://www.kernel.org
  rdesktop, core developer          http://www.rdesktop.org

  WARNING: This correspondence is being monitored by the
  Swedish government. Make sure your server uses encryption
  for SMTP traffic and consider using PGP for end-to-end
  encryption.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/