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: <CAPDyKFrWzDU9BsfAnx7uoaXq=gmGg2r46Mn-cJHSWUk-TmyomA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Oct 2018 20:36:24 +0200
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:     Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.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 4 October 2018 at 19:21, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com> wrote:
> 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.

There is already code using the new bindings, for the idle states.
Please have look at patch 5, 6 and 11.

Moreover, you have had plenty on time to look at the series, as those
patches haven't changed since a very long time.

May I suggest you do the review instead, so we can move things
forward, please. The changes in the v9 series should be trivial to
review.

>
>> > Likewise, it makes no sense to merge patches 7-8 without the rest of
>> > the PSCI patches.

Well, those patches are part of this series, because Mark wanted me to
move the files. Is really such a big deal? I think it makes sense, no
matter what happens afterwards.

[...]

Kind regards
Uffe