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  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]
Date:   Fri, 17 Feb 2017 15:22:19 -0800
From:   Kevin Hilman <>
To:     Viresh Kumar <>
Cc:     Rafael Wysocki <>,,,,,
        Vincent Guittot <>,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/6] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states

Viresh Kumar <> writes:

> An earlier series[1] tried to implement bindings for PM domain
> performance states. Rob Herring suggested that we can actually merge the
> supporting code first instead of bindings, as that will make things
> easier to understand for all. The bindings can be decided and merged
> later.
> 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.
> IOW, this series doesn't have any dependencies and can be merged
> straight away without waiting for the DT bindings.
> 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.

And what about domains where the performance levels are represented by
someting other than positive integer values? 

IMO, this implementation should start with a more generic approach
(e.g. OPPs) that would be useful on more SoCs that just qcom.  For SoCs
like QCOM, you could use dummy/simplfied OPPs that represent the integer
values passed to the qcom firmware.

> 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.

Yes.  Thanks for working on it!


Powered by blists - more mailing lists