linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 3/6] PM / Voltagedomain: introduce voltage domain driver support

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:	Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:25:43 -0500
From:	Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>
CC:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/6] PM / Voltagedomain: introduce voltage domain
 driver support

On 03/10/2014 01:01 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:41:05PM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> 
>> The only other options are:
>> a) Abstract it at a higher level at "user drivers", since they are
>> aware of the sequencing needs - but this partially defeats the
>> purpose, unless ofcourse, we do a tricky implementation such as:
>> clk a, b, c -> prenotifiers in a, postnotifiers in c (which as you
>> mentioned is a little trickier to get right).
>> b) introduce a higher level generic dvfs function[1] which does not
>> seem very attractive either.
> 
>> Any other suggestions other than limiting the usage(and documenting it
>> so) and hoping for a future evolution to take this into consideration?
> 
> Something might be doable with telling the clock API about maintianing
> ratios between clocks?  I do think we should have an idea where we'd go
> with such requirements, even if we don't currently handle it, so that we
> can hopefully avoid another round of refactoring everything but it
> doesn't seem 100% essential, just very nice to have.
> 
Mike,
Any suggestions about the above? could we use composite clocks in some
manner here(even though I think the original intent of the same was
not the same)?

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
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/