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

Message-ID: <20190423083524.io3n64i3orkclw5o@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Tue, 23 Apr 2019 14:05:24 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
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 23-04-19, 09:07, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Monday 22 Apr 2019 at 13:55:18 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 18-04-19, 09:04, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > 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 ?
> > 
> > Hmm, I would keep the WARN as it is hard to miss it compared to a
> > simple pr_err.
> 
> Right, I don't really mind either way TBH. But is this worse than having
> a NULL policy for example ? We have a standard pr_err() in this case.
> And same thing if the cooling device registration failed actually. Do
> you see a good reason to deal with EM stuff differently ?

Okay, that should be fine then. Use pr_err().

-- 
viresh