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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 03:29:53 +0100 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> Cc: cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, robin.randhawa@....com, Steve.Bannister@....com, Liviu.Dudau@....com, charles.garcia-tobin@....com, linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org, francescolavra.fl@...il.com, toddpoynor@...gle.com, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 3/4] cpufreq: Add Kconfig option to enable/disable have_multiple_policies On Friday, February 22, 2013 07:44:23 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 22 February 2013 05:23, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote: > > On Monday, February 11, 2013 01:20:02 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > > >> +config CPU_FREQ_HAVE_MULTIPLE_POLICIES > >> + bool > >> + > > > > So I suppose some architectures will select this, right? > > Yes. And they have to enable have_multiple_policies too from their > drivers init code. > > > What architecture they are? > > Atleast all big.LITTLE SoCs. Or any other SoC that has multiple policy > structs alive at any time. > > > > I'm not really sure I like this. -> > > >> static inline struct kobject * > >> get_governor_parent_kobj(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > >> { > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_HAVE_MULTIPLE_POLICIES > >> if (policy->have_multiple_policies) > >> return &policy->kobj; > >> else > >> +#endif > >> return cpufreq_global_kobject; > > > > -> I wonder why don't you arrange things so that policy->kobj is always > > returned, but it points to cpufreq_global_kobject in case there's only one > > (i.e. make policy->kobj a pointer)? > > policy->kobj is a struct instance rather than a pointer and it is widely used > within cpufreq.c. Yeah, policy attributes. Never mind. > If you don't like this one then we can add another entry > into struct policy like: gov_sysfs_parent. I don't know. This is going to look kind of ugly this way or another I think. Maybe I'll figure out something ... Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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