linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/8] Documentation: arm: define DT cpu capacity bindings

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:	Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:12:10 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Cc:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Sai Gurrappadi <sgurrappadi@...dia.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
	pboonstoppel@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/8] Documentation: arm: define DT cpu capacity
 bindings

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:49:56AM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote:

> But we'll still need to normalize this w.r.t the highest score we get on
> a specific platform, right? And while we are at normalizing it, it is
> probably simpler if we keep the frequency component as part of the
> number, IMHO. But, maybe keeping the frequency component separate is
> more acceptable from a DT binding perspective?

One possible issue with that: if we keep the frequency number as part of
the core number then that might cause issues for devices with variants
or system deployment decisions that remove some OPPs from a table.  If
the top OPP gets removed that would throw off the numbers.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)