linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] cpu_cooling: Drop static-power related stuff

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:   Tue, 21 Nov 2017 19:05:46 +0100
From:   Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To:     Javi Merino <javi.merino@...nel.org>,
        Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Lukasz Luba <llu.ker.dev@...il.com>,
        Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>,
        Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@....com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@...il.com>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] cpu_cooling: Drop static-power related stuff

On 21/11/2017 19:00, Javi Merino wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 08:57:06AM -0800, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> As I said before, the minimal you guys (ARM and Linaro) can do is to at
>> least upstream the Juno code! as a reference. Come on guys?  what is
>> preventing you to upstream Juno model?
> 
> As Ionela pointed out earlier in the thread, the cpufreq driver for Juno
> was not acceptable for mainline because it used platform specific code.
> When it was converted to cpufreq-dt, the static power was left behind
> because it can't be represented in device tree.  This is because there
> isn't a function that works for every SoC, different process nodes
> (among other things) will need different functions.  So it can't be just
> a bunch of coefficients in DT, we need a function.  Hence the callback.

The DT could contain the coef and a compatible string for a specific
polynomial computation callback. I imagine we should not have a lot of
different equations, no ?



-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog