linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 0/9] 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: <20170412142414.GF5910@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Wed, 12 Apr 2017 19:54:14 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>, ulf.hansson@...aro.org,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>
Cc:     linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
        Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        lina.iyer@...aro.org, rnayak@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/9] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states

On 20-03-17, 15:02, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The main feedback I got for the V3 series came from Kevin, who suggested
> that we should reuse OPP tables for genpd devices as well, instead of
> creating a new table type. And that's what this version is trying to do.
> 
> Some platforms have the capability to configure the performance state of
> their power domains. The process of configuring the performance state is
> pretty much platform dependent and we may need to work with a wide range
> of configurables.  For some platforms, like Qcom, it can be a positive
> integer value alone, while in other cases it can be voltage levels, etc.
> 
> The power-domain framework until now was only designed for the idle
> state management of the device and this needs to change in order to
> reuse the power-domain framework for active state management of the
> devices.

Hi Ulf/Kevin,

Over 3 weeks since the time this version was posted :(
Can we get some reviews of this stuff and decide on how we are
supposed to proceed on this ?

Its getting delayed a lot unnecessarily. Thanks.

-- 
viresh