| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20081209123607.GA1683@ucw.cz>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:36:10 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
To: Tom Hughes <tom@...pton.nu>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>, Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>,
Cristiano Prisciandaro <cristiano.p@...net.ch>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] cpufreq: eeepc 900 frequency scaling driver
On Sun 2008-12-07 15:55:00, Tom Hughes wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> It appears to be implemented in the 900 and 901 BIOSes as well, so some
>> kind of limitation is probably needed. The best approach would probably
>> to check whether the CPU has the EST flag. Just do something like:
>>
>> struct cpuinfo_x86 *cpu = &cpu_data(policy->cpu);
>>
>> if (cpu->x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_INTEL || cpu_has(cpu, X86_FEATURE_EST))
>> return -ENODEV
>>
>> at the top of the cpufreq init code. That way you'll refuse to bind on
>> anything that implements speedstep and acpi-cpufreq can be used
>> instead.
>
> Sounds like a good idea - here's a new version with that check added:
Whitespace damaged and needs signed-off-by; otherwise looks ok to me.
> --- kmod-eeepc-laptop-2.6.28rc5/eeepc-laptop.c 2008-11-20 09:24:41.000000000 +0000
> +++ kmod-eeepc-laptop-cpufreq/eeepc-laptop.c 2008-12-07 15:54:07.000000000 +0000
> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
> #include <linux/fb.h>
> #include <linux/hwmon.h>
> #include <linux/hwmon-sysfs.h>
> +#include <linux/cpufreq.h>
> #include <acpi/acpi_drivers.h>
> #include <acpi/acpi_bus.h>
> #include <linux/uaccess.h>
> @@ -731,6 +732,118 @@
> };
>
> /*
> + * Cpufreq
> + *
> + * Based on work by Cristiano P. <cris69@...net.ch>
> + */
> +static struct cpufreq_frequency_table eeepc_cpufreq_table[] = {
> + {0, 630000},
> + {1, 900000},
> + {0, CPUFREQ_TABLE_END}
> +};
> +
> +static unsigned int eeepc_cpufreq_get(unsigned int cpu)
> +{
> + switch (get_acpi(CM_ASL_CPUFV)) {
> + case 0x200:
> + return 900000;
> + case 0x201:
> + return 630000;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void eeepc_cpufreq_set(unsigned int frequency)
> +{
> + struct cpufreq_freqs freqs;
> +
> + freqs.cpu = 0;
> + freqs.old = eeepc_cpufreq_get(0);
> + freqs.new = frequency;
> +
> + cpufreq_notify_transition(&freqs, CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE);
> +
> + switch (frequency) {
> + case 900000:
> + set_acpi(CM_ASL_CPUFV, 0);
> + break;
> + case 630000:
> + set_acpi(CM_ASL_CPUFV, 1);
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + cpufreq_notify_transition(&freqs, CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE);
> +
> + return;
> +}
> +
> +static int eeepc_cpufreq_verify(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> +{
> + return cpufreq_frequency_table_verify(policy, eeepc_cpufreq_table);
> +}
> +
> +static int eeepc_cpufreq_target (struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> + unsigned int target_freq,
> + unsigned int relation)
> +{
> + unsigned int newstate = 0;
> +
> + if (cpufreq_frequency_table_target(policy, eeepc_cpufreq_table,
> + target_freq, relation, &newstate))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + eeepc_cpufreq_set(eeepc_cpufreq_table[newstate].frequency);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int eeepc_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> +{
> + struct cpuinfo_x86 *cpu = &cpu_data(policy->cpu);
> +
> + /* Defer to acpi-cpufreq if this CPU has SpeedStep support */
> + if (cpu->x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_INTEL || cpu_has(cpu, X86_FEATURE_EST))
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + if (get_acpi(CM_ASL_CPUFV) < 0)
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = 1000000;
> + policy->cur = eeepc_cpufreq_get(policy->cpu);
> +
> + if (cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo(policy, eeepc_cpufreq_table))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + cpufreq_frequency_table_get_attr(eeepc_cpufreq_table, policy->cpu);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int eeepc_cpufreq_cpu_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> +{
> + cpufreq_frequency_table_put_attr(policy->cpu);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static struct freq_attr *eeepc_cpufreq_attr[] = {
> + &cpufreq_freq_attr_scaling_available_freqs,
> + NULL,
> +};
> +
> +static struct cpufreq_driver eeepc_cpufreq_driver = {
> + .verify = eeepc_cpufreq_verify,
> + .target = eeepc_cpufreq_target,
> + .init = eeepc_cpufreq_cpu_init,
> + .exit = eeepc_cpufreq_cpu_exit,
> + .get = eeepc_cpufreq_get,
> + .name = "eeepc",
> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> + .attr = eeepc_cpufreq_attr,
> +};
> +
> +/*
> * exit/init
> */
> static void eeepc_backlight_exit(void)
> @@ -759,10 +872,16 @@
> eeepc_hwmon_device = NULL;
> }
>
> +static void eeepc_cpufreq_exit(void)
> +{
> + cpufreq_unregister_driver(&eeepc_cpufreq_driver);
> +}
> +
> static void __exit eeepc_laptop_exit(void)
> {
> eeepc_backlight_exit();
> eeepc_hwmon_exit();
> + eeepc_cpufreq_exit();
> acpi_bus_unregister_driver(&eeepc_hotk_driver);
> sysfs_remove_group(&platform_device->dev.kobj,
> &platform_attribute_group);
> @@ -810,6 +929,11 @@
> return result;
> }
>
> +static int eeepc_cpufreq_init(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + return cpufreq_register_driver(&eeepc_cpufreq_driver);
> +}
> +
> static int __init eeepc_laptop_init(void)
> {
> struct device *dev;
> @@ -837,6 +961,9 @@
> result = eeepc_hwmon_init(dev);
> if (result)
> goto fail_hwmon;
> + result = eeepc_cpufreq_init(dev);
> + if (result)
> + goto fail_cpufreq;
> /* Register platform stuff */
> result = platform_driver_register(&platform_driver);
> if (result)
> @@ -861,6 +988,8 @@
> fail_platform_device1:
> platform_driver_unregister(&platform_driver);
> fail_platform_driver:
> + eeepc_cpufreq_exit();
> +fail_cpufreq:
> eeepc_hwmon_exit();
> fail_hwmon:
> eeepc_backlight_exit();
>
>
> Tom
>
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists