linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] thermal: cpu_cooling: Migrate to using the EM framework

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, 18 Apr 2019 09:04:32 +0100
From:   Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     edubezval@...il.com, rui.zhang@...el.com, javi.merino@...nel.org,
        amit.kachhap@...il.com, rjw@...ysocki.net, will.deacon@....com,
        catalin.marinas@....com, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, ionela.voinescu@....com,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, mka@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] thermal: cpu_cooling: Migrate to using the EM
 framework

On Thursday 18 Apr 2019 at 09:23:23 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 17-04-19, 10:43, Quentin Perret wrote:
> >  static struct thermal_cooling_device *
> >  __cpufreq_cooling_register(struct device_node *np,
> > -			struct cpufreq_policy *policy, u32 capacitance)
> > +			struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > +			struct em_perf_domain *em)
> >  {
> 
> > +	if (em_is_sane(cpufreq_cdev, em)) {
> > +		cpufreq_cdev->em = em;
> >  		cooling_ops = &cpufreq_power_cooling_ops;
> > -	} else {
> > +	} else if (policy->freq_table_sorted != CPUFREQ_TABLE_UNSORTED) {
> >  		cooling_ops = &cpufreq_cooling_ops;
> > +	} else {
> > +		WARN(1, "cpu_cooling: no valid frequency table found\n");
> 
> Well the frequency table is valid, isn't it ?

True ...

> Maybe something like: "cpu_cooling doesn't support unsorted frequency tables" ?

Right, otherwise I guess that could be confused with the check on
cpu_table_count_valid_entries() above. And while I'm thinking about it
perhaps WARN is a bit too much here ? We can handle the error safely so
pr_err() should be enough ?

Thanks,
Quentin