linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-states binding

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170106092702.GH21926@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Fri, 6 Jan 2017 14:57:02 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
        Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@...aro.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-states
 binding

On 06-01-17, 14:16, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> 
> On 12/12/2016 04:26 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > Some platforms have the capability to configure the performance state of
> > their Power Domains. The performance levels are represented by positive
> > integer values, a lower value represents lower performance state.
> > 
> > The power-domains until now were only concentrating on the idle state
> > management of the device and this needs to change in order to reuse the
> > infrastructure of power domains for active state management.
> > 
> > This patch adds binding to describe the performance states of a power
> > domain.
> 
> The bindings would also need to take into account the fact that a device
> could (and is quite often the case with qcom platforms) have 2 separate
> powerdomains, one for idle state management and another to manage active
> states. I guess the below bindings assume that there's just one.

I have answered a similar question here..

https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=148067565219477&w=2

-- 
viresh