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  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]
Date:	Fri, 25 Jul 2014 20:04:17 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...aro.org>,
	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
	Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
	Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
	Thomas P Abraham <thomas.ab@...sung.com>,
	Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
	Arvind Chauhan <arvind.chauhan@....com>,
	Sachin Kamat <spk.linux@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] cpufreq: cpu0: Extend support beyond CPU0, V2

On 25 July 2014 19:59, Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com> wrote:
> A temporary solution would have to be NOT in DT because once you add
> something into DT you are stuck with it for some time. You could

I agree..

> simply support independent clocks by looking at the platform type, but
> that is still risky since you may want to define the OPP in DT
> differently for the 2 cases.

Or because we are going to create platform devices for now, lets have
some platform data for cpufreq-cpu0 ?

> The other problem with temporary solutions is once they are accepted,
> people loose motivation to create the permanent solution. "Can you
> take this now and I'll fix the issues later" is a red flag to
> maintainers.

I completely agree, but there are few points here which might make the red
flag yellow if not green :)
- I co-maintain this framework and so I do care about it :)
- Even with the temporary stuff the solution wouldn't be complete for platforms
with multiple clusters having separate clock lines.
--
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