linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] dt-bindings: modify document of Rockchip power domains

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]

Message-ID: <1560475.Omi7ovI7oB@phil>
Date:	Tue, 12 Apr 2016 04:00:10 +0200
From:	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
To:	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>
Cc:	Elaine Zhang <zhangqing@...k-chips.com>, xf@...k-chips.com,
	wxt@...k-chips.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	huangtao@...k-chips.com, zyw@...k-chips.com, xxx@...k-chips.com,
	jay.xu@...k-chips.com, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] dt-bindings: modify document of Rockchip power domains

Hi Kevin,

Am Freitag, 18. März 2016, 23:16:55 schrieb Heiko Stuebner:
> Am Freitag, 18. März 2016, 09:18:51 schrieb Kevin Hilman:
> > Elaine Zhang <zhangqing@...k-chips.com> writes:
> > > Add qos example for power domain which found on Rockchip SoCs.
> > > These qos register description in TRMs
> > > (rk3036, rk3228, rk3288, rk3366, rk3368, rk3399) looks the same.
> > 
> > This should describe in more detail what "qos" is in this context.  At
> > first glance, it's just a range of registers that lose context that need
> > to be saved/restored.
> 
> I guess that should be something like
> 
> ---- 8< ----
> Rockchip SoCs contain quality of service (qos) blocks managing priority,
> bandwidth, etc of the connection of each domain to the interconnect.
> These blocks loose state when their domain gets disabled and therefore
> need to be saved when disabling and restored when enabling a power-domain.
> 
> These qos blocks also are similar over all currently available Rockchip
> SoCs.
> ---- 8< ----

does this look sane to you in terms of description, or do we need something 
more?


Heiko