linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states

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]

Date:   Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:47:07 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <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>,
        Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@...aro.org>,
        "Nayak, Rajendra" <rnayak@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 6:30 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 03-01-17, 16:36, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> An earlier series[1] tried to implement bindings for PM domain
>> performance states. Rob Herring suggested that we can actually write the
>> supporting code first instead of bindings, as that will make things
>> easier to understand for all.
>>
>> The bindings [1] aren't discarded yet and this series is based on a
>> version of those only. The bindings are only used by the last patch,
>> which should not be applied and is only sent for completeness.
>>
>> All other patches can be reviewed/applied whenever the maintainers feel
>> they look good.
>>
>>
>> A brief summary of the problem this series is trying to solve:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> We decided earlier that we should extend Power Domain framework to
>> support active state power management as well.  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.
>>
>> The first 5 patches update the PM domain and QoS frameworks to support
>> that and the last one presents the front end interface to it.
>>
>> All the patches are tested by hacking the OPP core a bit for now.
>
> Ping !

http://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=148410629024194&w=2

Pretty please!

I will start processing things when I'm back (which probably means the
end of the next week realistically).

Thanks,
Rafael