linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/5] DVFS in the OPP core

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 8 Feb 2019 16:03:50 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Graham Roff <grahamr@...eaurora.org>,
        Mike Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/5] DVFS in the OPP core

On 08-02-19, 11:31, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 11:05, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 08-02-19, 10:45, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > > On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 08:17, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 07-02-19, 14:37, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > > > > I think we also need to consider cross SoC drivers. One SoC may have
> > > > > both clocks and OPPs to manage, while another may have only clocks.
> > > >
> > > > We already have that case with CPUs as well and dev_pm_opp_set_rate()
> > > > takes care of it.
> > >
> > > I think you may have misunderstood my point. Or maybe I don't get yours. :-)
> >
> > It was me. I thought you are talking about regulators and that is what
> > is already managed, i.e. to work with or without regulators.
> >
> > > What if there is no OPP at all to use, then dev_pm_opp_set_rate() is
> > > just a noop, right? In this scenario the driver still need to call
> > > clk_set_rate().
> > >
> > > How do we cope with these cases?
> >
> > Yeah, that would be a problem and hacking the OPP core may not be the
> > right solution :(
> 
> I guess one simple way forward could just be to check if there is an
> OPP handle/table available, then use dev_pm_opp_set_rate(). When no
> OPP handle/table, use clk_set_rate() *instead*, not both.
> 
> That could work, don't you think?

Yeah, just that it adds more conditional code in drivers, while we
wanted to make them light-weight :)

-- 
viresh