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:   Wed, 9 Jan 2019 17:01:57 -0800
From:   Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
To:     Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
        edubezval@...il.com, andy.gross@...aro.org, tdas@...eaurora.org,
        swboyd@...omium.org, dianders@...omium.org,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        "open list:CPU FREQUENCY DRIVERS" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/7] drivers: cpufreq: Add thermal_cooling_device
 pointer to struct cpufreq_policy

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 05:30:51AM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> Several cpufreq drivers register themselves as thermal cooling devices.
> Adding a pointer to struct cpufreq_policy removes the need for them to
> store this pointer in a private data structure.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>
> ---
>  include/linux/cpufreq.h | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> index c86d6d8bdfed..2496549d7573 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> @@ -95,6 +95,8 @@ struct cpufreq_policy {
>  	struct cpufreq_frequency_table	*freq_table;
>  	enum cpufreq_table_sorting freq_table_sorted;
>  
> +	struct thermal_cooling_device *cooldev; /* Pointer to the cooling
> +						 * device if used for thermal mitigation */
>  	struct list_head        policy_list;
>  	struct kobject		kobj;
>  	struct completion	kobj_unregister;

I've mixed feelings about this. It's definitely desirable to avoid
code duplication and tying the cooling device to the cpufreq_policy is
a convenient way to achieve that. However semantically it seems a bit
odd that a CPU cooling device is part of the cpufreq policy.

Anyway, unless there are better ideas we probably want to be pragmatic
here, so if Viresh is fine with it who am I to complain ;-)

Cheers

Matthias


Powered by blists - more mailing lists