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: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 23:30:03 +0100 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net> To: Wang Weidong <wangweidong1@...wei.com> Cc: viresh.kumar@...aro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, guohanjun@...wei.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] fix some problems for cpufreq On Saturday, November 29, 2014 09:40:02 AM Wang Weidong wrote: > On 2014/11/29 9:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday, November 28, 2014 10:43:37 AM Wang Weidong wrote: > >> Hi Rafael and Viresh > >> > >> Sorry to trouble you again. As for: > >> "acpi-cpufreq: get the cur_freq from acpi_processor_performance states" > >> I do it again, and add the other patch. > >> > >> patch #1: acpi-cpufreq: make the freq_table store the same freq value > >> > >> I think it can work. The set of available states which come > >> from acpi won't change. Just like the power would be remove, > >> the acpi driver will do that: > >> call > >> ->acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed > >> ->cpufreq_update_policy > >> ->acpi_ppc_notifier_block.notifier_call > >> ->acpi_processor_ppc_notifier > >> ->cpufreq_verify_within_limits > >> The progress will change the policy's min_freq and max_freq > >> while it won't change the set of states(freq_tables). > > > > OK, so the above information needs to go into the changelog of patch [1/2]. > > Also, please clarify the problem description in that changelog, it is very > > difficult to understand the way it is now. > > > > sure, I should do it. > > >> patch #2: cpufreq: show the real avail freqs with the freq_table > >> > >> when the min_freq and max_freq change, we should sync the availble > >> freqs. > > > > Why? Do any other cpufreq drivers do that? > > > > If some cpufreq drivers support several freqs like this: > 1.05 Ghz 1.30Ghz 1.70GHz 2.10GHz 2.3GHz > | | > min max > So what the available freqs is 1.30GHz 1.70GHz 2.10GHz > > when we do cpufreq-info or cat scaling_available_frequencies, > I think the available freqs table show only show these 3 value, > not all the values. That changes an existing user space interface, however, and the only reason I can figure out from what you're saying is your personal opinion. This isn't a good enough reason, however. What if there are utilities and scripts out there relying on the current behavior? -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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