linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/14] cpufreq: cpu0: Extend support beyond CPU0, V2

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: <CAKohpomPAp74Sf_DxqzFk1WzUTx5m=G-nj+d+QHW5q=gnVphhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Jul 2014 05:58:22 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arvind Chauhan <arvind.chauhan@....com>,
	"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sachin Kamat <spk.linux@...il.com>,
	Thomas P Abraham <thomas.ab@...sung.com>,
	Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
	Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...aro.org>,
	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] cpufreq: cpu0: Extend support beyond CPU0, V2

On 17 July 2014 02:48, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> I don't like that idea, but I wonder what other people think.

Hmm, the other thread around looking at the bindings is really slow.

One common thing around the platforms which want to use
cpufreq-cpu0 is they have different clocks for ALL CPUs.

I was wondering if instead of a clock-matching routine, we can provide
some temporary relief to them via some other means.

I meant we can allow cpufreq-cpu0/generic to either set policy->cpus
to ALL CPUs or just 1. So that existing and these new platforms can
atleast get going..

But don't know how should we do that. Not a binding ofcourse, a
Kconfig option could work but multiplatform stuff would break. What
else?

Maybe platform data as we are handling cpufreq-cpu0 with a platform
device?

--
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/