linux-kernel - Re: [RFC V7 1/2] 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: <20171130044800.GH11413@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Thu, 30 Nov 2017 10:18:00 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC V7 1/2] OPP: Allow OPP table to be used for power-domains

On 29-11-17, 10:46, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> > +- power-domain-opp: This contains phandle to one of the OPP nodes of the master
> > +  power domain. This specifies the minimum required OPP of the master domain for
> > +  the functioning of the device in this OPP (where this property is present).
> > +  This property can only be set for a device if the device node contains the
> > +  "power-domains" property. Also, either all or none of the OPP nodes in an OPP
> > +  table should have it set.
> 
> This is a "this device requires OPP n" property. Couldn't we want this
> for cases other than a powerdomain OPP? What if a device has
> requirements 2 different OPPs?

Hmm, I agree. We can/should make it more generic.

> On the flipside, I don't think we want devices picking things like CPU
> OPPs and putting policy here. But I'd rather things be extendable than
> reviewing yet another OPP property next month.

Sure, I would rename this property and make necessary changes to it.

-- 
viresh