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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20170206053505.GI3131@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Mon, 6 Feb 2017 11:05:05 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>, khilman@...libre.com,
        ulf.hansson@...aro.org
Cc:     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>,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, lina.iyer@...aro.org,
        rnayak@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states

On 16-01-17, 11:00, Viresh Kumar 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 !

Ping !!

-- 
viresh