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: <CANuQgHHknAk4tS-3iGPP=OPobNBK_v=t86=T=A=UjJADPq_JVw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 13 May 2014 17:27:35 +0530
From:	Chander Kashyap <chander.kashyap@...aro.org>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
	"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 16:35, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> 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?

This patch takes care for duplicate entries even without dt. Hence i
feel it can go as separate patch.


>
> --
> viresh



-- 
with warm regards,
Chander Kashyap
--
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