linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: defconfig: enable common modules for power management

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: <20160908102035.GD1493@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Sep 2016 11:20:35 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Simon Horman <horms+renesas@...ge.net.au>,
        Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>,
        Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@...aro.org>,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: defconfig: enable common modules for power
 management

Hi Arnd,

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 09:33:38AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday, September 1, 2016 12:51:09 PM CEST Leo Yan wrote:
> > Enable common modules for power management; one is to enable
> > CPUFREQ_DT driver; the driver is used by many platforms by passing OPP
> > table from device tree.
> > 
> > Also enables thermal related drivers. Firstly we need enable
> > configuration CPU_THERMAL for CPU cooling device driver, this will bind
> > thermal zone with CPU cooling device; and enable 'power allocator'
> > thermal governor.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
> > 
> 
> Looks good,
> 
> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> 
> Catalin and Will: I never know who should merge this kind of patch
> as we have a number of other arm64 defconfig patches going through
> arm-soc, but this patch is not really platform specific.
> 
> Do you want to pick it up in the arm64 tree or should we take
> this and others patches like it in general?

I'm perfectly happy with you taking this, but thanks for asking the
question. I think that, outside of the architectural bits, it makes
sense for arm-soc to manage config options that are requested by the
submaintainers. It also helps reduce defconfig churn. I typically wait
until -rc1 before making any .config changes, unless they're urgent
(e.g. systemd suddenly starts needing some options enabled in order to
boot), so if you queue this for the merge window then we should be good.

Will