linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 00/11] PM / Domains: Support hierarchical CPU arrangement (PSCI/ARM) (a subset)

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: <20181004172109.GA16878@red-moon>
Date:   Thu, 4 Oct 2018 18:21:09 +0100
From:   Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Lina Iyer <ilina@...eaurora.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 00/11] PM / Domains: Support hierarchical CPU
 arrangement (PSCI/ARM) (a subset)

On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 07:07:27PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

[...]

> > > I don't see any dependency there, so I'll queue up the 1-3 in
> > > pm-domains and the 4-6 in pm-cpuidle.
> >
> > I do not see why we should merge patches 4-6 for v4.20; they add legacy
> > (DT bindings and related parsing code) with no user in the kernel; we
> > may still want to tweak them, in particular PSCI DT bindings.
> 
> My impression was that 4-6 have been agreed on due to the ACKs they
> carry.  I'll drop them if that's not the case.

I have not expressed myself correctly: they have been agreed (even
though as I said they may require some tweaking) but I see no urgency
of merging them in v4.20 since they have no user. They contain DT
bindings, that create ABI/legacy, I think it is better to have code
that uses them in the kernel before merging them and creating a
dependency that is not needed.

> > Likewise, it makes no sense to merge patches 7-8 without the rest of
> > the PSCI patches.
> 
> OK
> 
> I'll let the ARM camp sort out the PSCI material then.

We will do.

Thanks,
Lorenzo