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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 03:02:49 +0200 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net> To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>, Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>, "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>, Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Thomas P Abraham <thomas.ab@...sung.com>, Rob Herring <rob.herring@...aro.org>, "linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>, Arvind Chauhan <arvind.chauhan@....com>, Sachin Kamat <spk.linux@...il.com>, Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] cpufreq: cpu0: Extend support beyond CPU0, V2 On Thursday, July 17, 2014 01:11:45 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 17 July 2014 13:05, Thomas Petazzoni > <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com> wrote: > > Could you summarize what is the issue with the binding? > > > > At least for the case where we have one clock per CPU, the DT binding > > is really dead simple: each CPU node can carry a "clocks" property, and > > a "clock-latency" property. I really don't see why a long discussion is > > needed to agree on such a binding. > > > > Now, if the DT binding problem is related to those cases where you have > > siblings, i.e one clock controlling *some* of the CPUs, but not all > > CPUs or just one CPU, then maybe we could leave this aside for now, > > Yeah, we are stuck on that for now. > > > only support the following cases: > > > > * One clock for all CPUs > > * One clock for each CPU > > Yeah, so I also proposed this yesterday that we stick to only these > two implementations for now. And was looking at how would the > cpufreq-generic driver come to know about this. > > So, one way out now is to see if "clocks" property is defined in > multiple cpu nodes, if yes don't compare them and consider separate > clocks for each cpu. We don't have to try matching that to any other > node, as that's a very bad idea. Mike was already very upset with that :) > > @Stephen/Rafael: Does that sound any better? Ofcourse the final thing > is to get bindings to figure out relations between CPUs.. Before I apply anything in this area, I need a clear statement from the ARM people as a group on what the approach is going to be. Rafael -- 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