linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 2/2] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Add support for QCOM cpufreq HW 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: <20181204092919.t326z6etfvdrjyge@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:59:19 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Taniya Das <tdas@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, robh@...nel.org,
        skannan@...eaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        evgreen@...gle.com, Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 2/2] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Add support for QCOM cpufreq
 HW driver

On 04-12-18, 14:57, Taniya Das wrote:
> Hello Viresh,
> 
> On 12/4/2018 10:42 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > Hi Taniya,
> > 
> > Sorry that I haven't been reviewing it much from last few iterations as I was
> > letting others get this into a better shape. Thanks for your efforts..
> > 
> > On 02-12-18, 09:25, Taniya Das wrote:
> > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> > 
> > > +struct cpufreq_qcom {
> > > +	struct cpufreq_frequency_table *table;
> > > +	void __iomem *perf_state_reg;
> > > +	cpumask_t related_cpus;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static struct cpufreq_qcom *qcom_freq_domain_map[NR_CPUS];
> > 
> > Now that the code is much more simplified, I am not sure if you need this
> > per-cpu structure at all. The only place where you are using it is in
> > qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init() and probe(). Why not merge qcom_cpu_resources_init()
> > completely into qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init() and get rid of this structure
> > entirely ?
> > 
> 
> Yes, we still would require the per-cpu.

An explanation on why do you feel so would have been nice :)

I am sure I am missing something obvious here.

-- 
viresh