linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] cpufreq:boost: Add support for software based CPU frequency boost

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

Date:	Fri, 07 Jun 2013 16:34:26 +0200
From:	Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...sung.com>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocky" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	"cpufreq@...r.kernel.org" <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Jonghwa Lee <jonghwa3.lee@...sung.com>,
	Myungjoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...ess.pl>,
	Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@...aro.org>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] cpufreq:boost: Add support for software based CPU
 frequency boost

Hi Viresh,

> Hi Lukasz,
> 
> On 7 June 2013 18:57, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...sung.com> wrote:
> 
> I hope you agreed to all the other comments I gave as I don't see an
> explicit reply below each of these. I have seen people missing these
> in past, so what would be better to do is:
> - either reply below each one of them and say yes or no..
> - Or write once below many comments and say: All above comments
> are accepted.
> 
> So, that Reviewer is assured that you haven't missed anything.
> 

Thanks for reminding :-).

I've read through all the comments. I'm redesigning now the driver to
remove redundant code.


> > I would prefer to have following fields in the cpufreq_boost
> > structure: struct cpufreq_boost {
> >         unsigned int    max_boost_freq; /*boost max freq*/
> >         unsigned int    max_normal_freq; /*max normal freq
> >         int (*low_level_boost) (int state);
> >         bool boost_en;  /* indicate if boost is enabled */
> > }
> >
> > The max_{boost|normal}_freq fields will be filed at
> > ret = cpufreq_driver->init(policy);
> >
> > Thanks to them I will avoid calling many times routine, which
> > extracts from freq_table maximal boost and normal frequencies.
> >
> > I could define those variables in the exynos-cpufreq.c driver, but I
> > think, that they are more suitable to be embedded at cpufreq_boost
> > structure.
> 
> I understand that you need these variables (I will still look how you
> are using them in next version). But they are per policy and driver
> isn't responsible for maintaining them. If they are required then
> cpufreq core must find them out and keep in struct cpufreq_policy (as
> they are policy dependent)..
> 
> So, remove this structure from cpufreq_driver and embed variables
> directly.

After refactoring the code. I admit, that we shall embed the struct
cpu_boost fields directly to the coufreq_driver. There is no point to
create structure with 2 fields.

-- 
Best regards,

Lukasz Majewski

Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group
--
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/