linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Add Kryo CPU scaling driver

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: <20180521121140.GO17671@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
Date:   Mon, 21 May 2018 13:11:41 +0100
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     ilialin@...eaurora.org
Cc:     viresh.kumar@...aro.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Add Kryo CPU scaling driver

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 02:05:41PM +0300, ilialin@...eaurora.org wrote:
> You are right.
> cpu_dev_silver != cpu_dev_gold, and I found this with my tests as well.
> Thank you.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
> > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 13:54
> > To: Ilia Lin <ilialin@...eaurora.org>
> > Cc: viresh.kumar@...aro.org; devicetree@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> > pm@...r.kernel.org; linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> > kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-soc@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> > clk@...r.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Add Kryo CPU scaling driver
> > 
> > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 01:31:30PM +0300, Ilia Lin wrote:
> > > +#define SILVER_LEAD	0
> > > +#define GOLD_LEAD	2
> > 
> > Okay, two different values here, but "GOLD_LEAD" appears unused.
> > 
> > > +	cpu_dev_silver = get_cpu_device(SILVER_LEAD);
> > > +	if (NULL == cpu_dev_silver)
> > > +		return -ENODEV;
> > > +
> > > +	cpu_dev_gold = get_cpu_device(SILVER_LEAD);
> > > +	if (NULL == cpu_dev_gold)
> > > +		return -ENODEV;
> > 
> > get_cpu_device() takes the logical CPU number.  So the above gets CPU 0
> > each time, and so cpu_dev_silver == cpu_dev_gold here.  So what's the
> > point of the second get_cpu_device() ?  If it's supposed to be:
> > 
> > 	cpu_dev_gold = get_cpu_device(GOLD_LEAD);
> > 
> > That would get CPU 2, but in terms of these defines, it doesn't make that
> > much sense.  What exactly does "silver lead" and "gold lead" refer to in
> these
> > definitions?

I think you still need to explain this.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up