linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V10 0/3] PM / Domains: Performance state support

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: <20171004064521.GA3002@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Wed, 4 Oct 2017 12:15:21 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
        Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@...aro.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
        David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V10 0/3] PM / Domains: Performance state support

On 03-10-17, 09:52, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> We sorted out things at LPC!
> 
> However, the last weeks discussions at Linaro connect, raised a couple
> of more concerns with the current approach. Let me summarize them
> here.
> 
> 1)
> The ->dev_get_performance_state(), which currently translates
> frequency for a device to a performance index of its PM domain, is too
> closely integrated with genpd. Instead this kind of translation rather
> belongs as a part of the OPP core, because of not limiting this only
> to translate frequencies, but perhaps *later* also voltages.
> 
> 2)
> Propagating an aggregated increased requested performance state index
> for a genpd, upwards in the hierarchy of its master domains, is
> currently not needed by any existing SoCs.
> 
> 3) If some day the need for 2) becomes required, we must not assume a
> 1 to 1 mapping of the supported performance state index for a
> master/subdomain. For example a domain may support 1-5, while its
> master may support 1-8.
> 
> Taking this into consideration, this series need yet another round of
> re-spin. The ->dev_get_performance_state() part should be move to the
> OPP layer and the code dealing with the aggregation of the performance
> state index can be greatly simplified.

Thanks for the summary.

>From the above, it looks like I can send this series right away instead of
waiting for the multiple genpd per device thing? Is that the case ?

-- 
viresh