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: <f4d6ba51-c2ac-4ddb-5acc-c4825aa6a793@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Oct 2019 00:09:35 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Peter Geis <pgwipeout@...il.com>,
        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)

17.10.2019 05:32, Viresh Kumar пишет:
> On 16-10-19, 21:19, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Well, using (almost) pure upstream is the idea I believe. And the thing is they
> want to use a single multi-platform image which should be as small as possible
> in size. So it won't have any drivers or platform stuff (if possible) and
> everything is module.
> 
> I am not sure about arm32/64 thing though. And it is okay if you don't want to
> care about Google right now. That was just some side knowledge I had :)
> 

I'll leave the module part as-is for now.