linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Set CPUFREQ_ASYNC_NOTIFICATION for drivers handling notification

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 25 Apr 2014 13:52:51 +0530
From:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
CC:	rjw@...ysocki.net, mroos@...ux.ee, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
	cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Set CPUFREQ_ASYNC_NOTIFICATION for drivers handling
 notification

On 04/25/2014 01:22 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> CPUFREQ_ASYNC_NOTIFICATION was initially designed for drivers which don't want
> core to send notifications for them as they wouldn't finish frequency
> transitions in ->target_index().
>

And let's keep it that way. Overloading ASYNC_NOTIFICATION with other meanings
is a bad idea.
 
> But there were other kinds of drivers as well who don't have straight forward
> implementations of ->target_index() routines and wanted to handle notifications
> themselves.
> 

Looking at longhaul, powernow-k6 and powernow-k7, I think we can safely remove
the extra notifications from them and let them depend on the cpufreq core's set
of notifications. The patchset I posted just now uses that design.

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat

--
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/