linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states

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, 16 Jan 2017 11:00:07 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>, khilman@...libre.com,
        ulf.hansson@...aro.org
Cc:     linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
        Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, lina.iyer@...aro.org,
        rnayak@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states

On 03-01-17, 16:36, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> An earlier series[1] tried to implement bindings for PM domain
> performance states. Rob Herring suggested that we can actually write the
> supporting code first instead of bindings, as that will make things
> easier to understand for all.
> 
> The bindings [1] aren't discarded yet and this series is based on a
> version of those only. The bindings are only used by the last patch,
> which should not be applied and is only sent for completeness.
> 
> All other patches can be reviewed/applied whenever the maintainers feel
> they look good.
> 
> 
> A brief summary of the problem this series is trying to solve:
> 
> Some platforms have the capability to configure the performance state of
> their Power Domains. The performance levels are represented by positive
> integer values, a lower value represents lower performance state.
> 
> We decided earlier that we should extend Power Domain framework to
> support active state power management as well.  The power-domains until
> now were only concentrating on the idle state management of the device
> and this needs to change in order to reuse the infrastructure of power
> domains for active state management.
> 
> The first 5 patches update the PM domain and QoS frameworks to support
> that and the last one presents the front end interface to it.
> 
> All the patches are tested by hacking the OPP core a bit for now.

Ping !

-- 
viresh