linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 0/3] cpufreq: add support for intermediate (stable)

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: <CAKohpo=VKsAdSJLL+cvGnBMFLj8JDecd2ZRKfQtEc9ZmqkC1eg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 16 May 2014 20:56:18 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:	Thomas Abraham <ta.omasab@...il.com>,
	"rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham@...aro.org>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Arvind Chauhan <arvind.chauhan@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/3] cpufreq: add support for intermediate (stable)

On 16 May 2014 20:50, Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
> Right, so I think on exynos no functionality will be broken once
> Thomas's cpufreq-cpu0 change lands (udelay will only run long, never
> short).  ...but from the purist standpoint we will be transitioning
> from 1.6 GHz => 800 MHz => 1.7 GHz without any notification about the
> 800 MHz.   You could imagine someone registering for cpufreq
> notifications that would care about the 800MHz transition.
>
> ...so it seems like we could wait for Thomas's patches to land as-is
> (since they make things better) and then atop that see about adding
> support for intermediate frequencies to cpufreq-cpu0.

Hmm, don't know. I think these patches aren't aimed at solving exynos's
problem but rather a general solution which must have already been there.

If some platform can work without it then its fine, but otherwise they should
use it, even if udelay does work for them..

So, I would propose to go ahead with these patches in linux-next and lets
see who all would use it.
--
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/