linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] cpufreq: Add ->get

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: <20150709045902.GI1805@linux>
Date:	Thu, 9 Jul 2015 10:29:02 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] cpufreq: Add ->get_rate() driver callback

On 09-07-15, 01:41, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 08, 2015 04:07:32 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > CPUFreq drivers today support a ->get(cpu) callback, which returns
> > current rate of a CPU. The problem with ->get() is that it takes a cpu
> > number as parameter and this unnecessarily makes things complex.
> > 
> > Firstly the core gets the cpu number by doing operation 'policy->cpu' on
> > the policy and then many drivers need to get the policy back and so do
> > cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu) on the passed cpu.
> > 
> > As cpufreq core works on policies, it would be better if we pass them
> > 'policy' directly and drivers can use policy->cpu if that's all they
> > need.
> > 
> > Hence, this patch adds in another callback, ->get_rate() which does
> > exactly the same work as ->get(), just that we pass 'policy' as
> > parameter instead of 'cpu'.
> > 
> > The plan is to migrate all drivers to this new callback and remove
> > ->get() after that.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> > ---
> > Hi Rafael,
> > 
> > I hope you are fine with this stuff :), once you approve I will get
> > other patches to migrate existing drivers to this interface.
> 
> I'm generally fine with it, but please target it at 4.4 at the earliest.

Sure, but I was a bit curious on why 4.4 and not 4.3 ? as we are still
at 4.2-rc1 today, and these patches can be done fairly quickly.

-- 
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/