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]
Message-id: <20130812115205.6fb12667@amdc308.digital.local>
Date:	Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:52:05 +0200
From:	Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...sung.com>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
	Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@...com>,
	"cpufreq@...r.kernel.org" <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jonghwa Lee <jonghwa3.lee@...sung.com>,
	Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...ess.pl>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
	Myungjoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>, durgadoss.r@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/8] cpufreq:exynos:Extend Exynos cpufreq driver to
 support boost framework

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:56:53 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@...aro.org
wrote,
> On 25 July 2013 22:03, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...sung.com> wrote:
> 
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
> > b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c index 9ae1871..175172d9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
> > @@ -270,6 +270,9 @@ static int exynos_cpufreq_cpu_exit(struct
> > cpufreq_policy *policy)
> >
> >  static struct freq_attr *exynos_cpufreq_attr[] = {
> >         &cpufreq_freq_attr_scaling_available_freqs,
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW
> 
> Use ARM_EXYNOS_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW instead.

Ok, the ARM_EXYNOS_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW looks more appropriate here.

> 
> > +       &cpufreq_freq_attr_scaling_boost_freqs,
> > +#endif
> >         NULL,
> >  };
> >
> > @@ -332,6 +335,9 @@ static int __init exynos_cpufreq_probe(struct
> > platform_device *pdev)
> >
> >         locking_frequency = exynos_getspeed(0);
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW
> > +       exynos_driver.boost_supported = true;
> > +#endif
> 
> So, why here and not in the definition of exynos_driver?

Ok, I will move the above code to struct cpufreq_driver exynos_driver

> 
> >         register_pm_notifier(&exynos_cpufreq_nb);
> >
> >         if (cpufreq_register_driver(&exynos_driver)) {
> > --
> > 1.7.10.4
> >



-- 
Best regards,

Lukasz Majewski

Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ