linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 05/11] of: base: Add of_get_cpu_state

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:   Thu, 11 Oct 2018 17:01:22 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....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>,
        DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 05/11] of: base: Add of_get_cpu_state_node() to get
 idle states for a CPU node

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 05:05:07PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 10 October 2018 at 17:03, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
[...]
> >
> > No strong opinion but I am wondering if it makes sense to get cpu
> > logical index and fetch the cpu of_node here to contain the refcount on
> > it within this function while we are trying to consolidate. I do see
> > that may not be so useful in psci.c but keeping refcount for cpu of_node
> > here keeps the user free from that.
> 
> I see your point.
> 
> However, I am hesitating doing that change, as it would be a waste for
> the psci case, but I also think that it may becomes a bit less
> straight forward to use this helper function.
> 
> Although, no strong opinions from my side either, but since Rob is
> happy with this, there is no need to change it, I think.
>

Sure, no problem.

--
Regards,
Sudeep