linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: pass policy to ->get() driver callback

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: <20150903044545.GI13140@linux>
Date:	Thu, 3 Sep 2015 10:15:45 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: pass policy to ->get() driver callback

On 31-07-15, 16:14, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> CPUFreq drivers today support ->get(cpu) callback, which returns current
> clock rate of the CPU. The problem with ->get() is that it takes 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 cpu passed as argument to ->get().
> 
> It would be better if we pass them 'policy' directly and drivers can use
> policy->cpu if that's all they need.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>

Is this getting moved to 4.4?

-- 
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/