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:   Wed, 27 Dec 2017 15:36:24 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        Rafael 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 2/2] OPP: Allow "opp-hz" and "opp-microvolt" to contain
 magic values

On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 26-12-17, 14:23, Rob Herring wrote:
>> >         cpu_opp_table: cpu_opp_table {
>> >                 compatible = "operating-points-v2";
>> >                 opp-shared;
>> >
>> >                 opp00 {
>> >                         opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <208000000>;
>> >                         clock-latency-ns = <500000>;
>> >                         power-domain-opp = <&domain_opp_1>;
>>
>> What is this? opp00 here is not a device. One OPP should not point to
>> another. "power-domain-opp" is only supposed to appear in devices
>> alongside power-domains properties.
>
> There are two type of devices:
>
> A.) With fixed performance state requirements and they will have the
> new "required-opp" property in the device node itself as you said.
>
> B.) Devices which can do DVFS (CPU, MMC, LCD, etc) and those may need
> a different performance state of the domain for their individual OPPs
> and so we can't have this property in the device all the time.
>
> Does this make sense ?

No. From the definition for power-domain-opp

"+- 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."

In the above example, you are violating the next to last sentence.

Though, I'm now confused by what the last sentence means.

Rob

Powered by blists - more mailing lists