linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PM / OPP: discard duplicate OPP additions

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: <CAKohpon9RLBPniYN+26Bk9GaMBAiTEFqp_YONzPBm7+3n17yiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 13 May 2014 16:35:02 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
Cc:	"[Chander Kashyap" <chander.kashyap@...aro.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Chander Kashyap <k.chander@...sung.com>,
	Inderpal Singh <inderpal.s@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / OPP: discard duplicate OPP additions

On 13 May 2014 16:00, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>> On 13 May 2014 13:11, [Chander Kashyap <chander.kashyap@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>> What happened to your name ? "["
>>
>>> From: Chander Kashyap <k.chander@...sung.com>
>>>
>>> It may be possible to unregister and re-register the cpufreq driver.
>>> One such example is arm big-little IKS cpufreq driver. While
>>> re-registering the driver, same OPPs may get added again.
>>>
>>> This patch detects the duplicacy and discards them.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chander Kashyap <k.chander@...sung.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Inderpal Singh <inderpal.s@...sung.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/base/power/opp.c |   28 +++++++++++++++++++---------
>>>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> I wouldn't say that this approach is particularly bad or wrong, but what
>> about this instead?
>>
>
> Yes I prefer this and this exactly what I had[1] in my OPP DT series which
> we could not conclude on the bindings. You also need patch[2] for DT version.

Ahh, I have just reinvented the wheel. Though I can see now that I have
Acked those patches as well :)

So, what are the plans for those patches then? As Chander also needs few
of those.

Probably split the series to get the non-blockers upstream Atleast ?

Another thing that I thought later, though the problem can be fixed by
your version of patches, the version from chander had something good as
well. It would get rid of duplicate entries coming from dtb. Would it make
sense to get that part in as well?

--
viresh
--
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/