linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

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: <8aacc296-2549-f0b8-ac25-2f4000c084c1@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 May 2017 12:21:54 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, robh+dt@...nel.org
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>, ulf.hansson@...aro.org,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
        linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        lina.iyer@...aro.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] PM / OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for
 power-domains



On 30/04/17 13:49, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:42:49AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> On 26/04/17 14:55, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
>>> As I'm getting fed up of saying: if the values you are setting are not
>>> voltages and do not behave like voltages then the hardware should not be
>>> represented as a voltage regulator since if they are represented as
>>> voltage regulators things will expect to be able to control them as
>>> voltage regulators.  This hardware is quite clearly providing OPPs
>>> directly, I would expect this to be handled in the OPP code somehow.
> 
>> I agree with you that we need to be absolutely sure on what it actually
>> represents.
> 
>> But as more and more platform are pushing such power controls to
>> dedicated M3 or similar processors, we need abstraction. Though we are
>> controlling hardware, we do so indirectly. Since there were discussions
>> around device tree representing hardware vs platform, I tend to think,
>> we are moving towards platform(something similar to ACPI).
> 
> I don't think there's a meaningful hardware/platform distinction here -
> in terms of what DT is describing the platform bit is just what the
> hardware (the microcontrollers) happen to do, 
> 

Yes agreed. It's similar to PSCI or any other platform firmware IMO.

The question is how do we deal with such controls that needs to be done
via the firmware ? We generally plug-in to the existing framework in
Linux using the existing bindings. Most of the time, much simpler
bindings than the one that present complete hardware description.

> DT doesn't much care about that though.

No sure about that, may be doesn't care about the internals, but we need
to care about interface, no ?

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep