linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Add required-opps support to devfreq passive gov

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: <20190725023050.7ggjbwsthoxpkexv@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jul 2019 08:00:50 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
Cc:     MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
        Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
        Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Sibi Sankar <sibis@...eaurora.org>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Add required-opps support to devfreq passive gov

On 23-07-19, 18:42, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> The devfreq passive governor scales the frequency of a "child" device based
> on the current frequency of a "parent" device (not parent/child in the
> sense of device hierarchy). As of today, the passive governor requires one
> of the following to work correctly:
> 1. The parent and child device have the same number of frequencies
> 2. The child device driver passes a mapping function to translate from
>    parent frequency to child frequency.

> v3 -> v4:
> - Fixed documentation comments
> - Fixed order of functions in .h file
> - Renamed the new xlate API
> - Caused _set_required_opps() to fail if all required opps tables aren't
>   linked.

We are already in the middle of a discussion for your previous version
and I haven't said yet that I am happy with what you suggested just 2
days back. Why send another version so soon ? The next merge window is
also very far in time from now.

Please wait for a few days before sending newer versions, I will
continue discussion on the previous version only for now.

-- 
viresh