linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Add support for Tegra Activity Monitor

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:18:49 +0900
From:	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>
To:	Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>
Cc:	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Add support for Tegra Activity Monitor

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Tomeu Vizoso
<tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com> wrote:
> On 12/09/2014 06:38 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:14 AM, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> this v3 addresses the comments that the devfreq implementation got, namely:
>>>
>>> * Address misc. style issues found by Thierry and Alexander
>>> * Added helpers for register i/o
>>> * Further documented the structs
>>> * Enable the ACTMON after the IRQ handler has been installed
>>> * Disable the ACTMON before removing the IRQ handler
>>> * Add governor in a subsys initcall
>>>
>>> There's an open question on whether some functionality currently in this
>>> devfreq driver should be moved into the devfreq framework, but without knowing
>>> of other SoC family that would benefit from it, I'm reticent. It would be
>>> great to hear from the devfreq maintainers if they have any plans regarding
>>> this, or if they have any suggestion.
>>
>> I cannot make a thorough review because of the problem I mentioned in
>> patch 3/3, but I am guessing this series is converging towards what we
>> want. Now the main question will be how we can leverage Arto's
>> watermark series for this one. I am ready to bet that doing so can
>> reduce quite a lot of code.
>>
>> Since you are likely to be the first user of the watermarking feature,
>> could you comment on its potential shortcomings and whatever needs to
>> be fixed to best implement ACTMON support using it? I will try to push
>> it myself, but you are obviously in a better position to understand
>> what is needed.
>
> Sure, I'm still playing with the idea, but I have sent a few questions
> to that thread already.

Seen that, thanks! After seeing your comments I come to thing that
maybe we should merge ACTMON support first and then adapt it to use
watermarking afterwards. I'm all for incremental changes and after 4
iterations this series should be close to completion now - would be
sad to go back to the design board at this stage.

Reviewing your v4 is on my schedule for tomorrow, thanks for your patience!
--
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/