linux-kernel - [RFD] DT binding for a new CPU cooling device

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

Message-ID: <53b5ba87-cf8c-75f5-aa67-f5c7438c86d7@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 13 Dec 2019 18:32:36 +0100
From:   Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: [RFD] DT binding for a new CPU cooling device


Hi,

currently the binding for a cooling device associated with a thermal
zone is a phandle to the cooling device itself, like:

cooling-device = <&cpu0 0 2>;
cooling-device = <&gpu0 0 2>;
cooling-device = <&lcd0 5 10>;
cooling-device = <&fan0 THERMAL_NO_LIMIT 4>;

In the case of the cpu, now we can mitigate by injecting idle period [1]
and this can co-exist with the existing DVFS mitigation (at different
trip point).

As it is not possible to use also a phandle to a CPU because the binding
is used by the DVFS cpu cooling device, does it make sense to refer to
an idle state? like:

cooling-device = <&CPU_SLEEP THERMAL_NO_LIMITE THERMAL_NO_LIMIT>;

Thanks in advance for any advice

  -- Daniel

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/12/11/1902

-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog