linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 07/17] cpufreq: tegra20: Use generic cpufreq-dt driver (Tegra30 supported now)

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: <b4eca03d-f86c-8e07-e04a-612e02820bd0@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Oct 2019 21:19:38 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     Peter Geis <pgwipeout@...il.com>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>,
        Prashant Gaikwad <pgaikwad@...dia.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart@...il.com>,
        Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@...adex.com>,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 07/17] cpufreq: tegra20: Use generic cpufreq-dt driver
 (Tegra30 supported now)

16.10.2019 17:58, Peter Geis пишет:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:29 AM Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> 16.10.2019 08:18, Viresh Kumar пишет:
>>> On 16-10-19, 00:16, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> Re-parenting to intermediate clock is supported now by the clock driver
>>>> and thus there is no need in a customized CPUFreq driver, all that code
>>>> is common for both Tegra20 and Tegra30. The available CPU freqs are now
>>>> specified in device-tree in a form of OPPs, all users should update their
>>>> device-trees.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm          |   4 +-
>>>>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c |   2 +
>>>>  drivers/cpufreq/tegra20-cpufreq.c    | 236 ++++++---------------------
>>>>  3 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 187 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm
>>>> index a905796f7f85..2118c45d0acd 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm
>>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm
>>>> @@ -301,8 +301,8 @@ config ARM_TANGO_CPUFREQ
>>>>      default y
>>>>
>>>>  config ARM_TEGRA20_CPUFREQ
>>>> -    tristate "Tegra20 CPUFreq support"
>>>> -    depends on ARCH_TEGRA
>>>> +    bool "Tegra20 CPUFreq support"
>>>
>>> Google is currently working on the GKI (generic kernel image) project where they
>>> want to use a single kernel image with modules for all kind of android devices.
>>> And for that they need all such drivers to be built as module. Since this is
>>> already an module, I would ask you to keep it as is instead of moving it to bool
>>> here. Else some google guy will switch it back as module later on.
>>>
>>> LGTM otherwise. Nice work. Thanks.
>>>
>>
>> Okay, I'll keep the modularity in v2.
>>
>> Although, tegra20-cpufreq isn't a driver anymore because now it merely
>> prepares OPP table for the cpufreq-dt driver, which is really a one-shot
>> action that is enough to do during boot and thus modularity is a bit
>> redundant here.
> 
> I doubt Google will care much, since Android has moved on to aarch64.
> Do they even support arm32 any more?

Yes, I don't think there is a real need to care about Google. They won't
use pure upstream and won't care about older hardware any ways.