linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] cpu_cooling: Drop static-power related stuff

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]

Date:   Tue, 21 Nov 2017 18:49:04 +0100
From:   Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To:     Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
        Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>
Cc:     Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@....com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@...il.com>,
        Javi Merino <javi.merino@...nel.org>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        lukasz.luba@....com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Javi Merino <javi.merino@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] cpu_cooling: Drop static-power related stuff

On 21/11/2017 18:09, Eduardo Valentin wrote:

[ ... ]

> Well, I really do not see the point of a ask to extend the current API
> if have no single user of it. What are the current users problems with
> the API? What needs to be improved? What are the problems? We cannot
> tell, guess why? We have no users of it!
> 
> Once again, do we have a reference platform? Oh, yes, that is Juno, and
> not even that is in mainline code.
> 
> Folks, this can be a very nice discussion on how we can over engineer
> this API, but being pragmatic and avoiding wasting our time here, we all
> know what needs to be done. Dead code in mainline is hard to maintain.
> API to support out of the tree code is even harder. I am surprised to
> see this code was able to sustain itself in mainline with none
> challenging it for 2.5 y. So, we either get you guys to upstream at
> least one user of it or we just move on and remove the API, and keep
> mainline with only dynamic power, with periodic undershoots and
> overshoots. It is a simple decision: you either mainline it or keep IPA
> MORE inaccurate and take the burden to keep vendor own implementation
> of APIs for static power model on each product cycle, you choose.

+1 to remove it.


-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog