linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] Add P state driver for Intel Core Processors

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:	Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:38:04 -0800
From:	Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@...il.com>
To:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Add P state driver for Intel Core Processors

Hi Dave,

On 02/12/2013 01:49 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 09:02:07AM -0800, dirk.brandewie@...il.com wrote:
>
> Won't you also need to patch drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c to not load
> on the processors that you want this driver to run on ?
>
> 	Dave
>

For the case where both are built-in the load order works my driver uses
device_initcall() and acpi_cpufreq uses late_initcall().

For the case where both are a module (which I was sure I tested) you are right
I will have to do something.

For now I propose to make my driver built-in only while I sort out the right
solution for the module build.  Does this seem reasonable to everyone?

--Dirk

--
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/