linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] PM / EM: and devices to Energy Model

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]

Date:   Mon, 20 Jan 2020 15:36:46 +0000
From:   Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-imx@....com
Cc:     Morten.Rasmussen@....com, Chris.Redpath@....com,
        ionela.voinescu@....com, javi.merino@....com,
        cw00.choi@...sung.com, b.zolnierkie@...sung.com, rjw@...ysocki.net,
        sudeep.holla@....com, viresh.kumar@...aro.org, nm@...com,
        sboyd@...nel.org, rui.zhang@...el.com, amit.kucheria@...durent.com,
        daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, qperret@...gle.com, bsegall@...gle.com,
        mgorman@...e.de, shawnguo@...nel.org, s.hauer@...gutronix.de,
        festevam@...il.com, kernel@...gutronix.de, khilman@...nel.org,
        agross@...nel.org, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, robh@...nel.org,
        matthias.bgg@...il.com, steven.price@....com,
        tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com, alyssa.rosenzweig@...labora.com,
        airlied@...ux.ie, daniel@...ll.ch, patrick.bellasi@...bug.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] PM / EM: and devices to Energy Model



On 1/20/20 3:11 PM, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 20/01/2020 15:53, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> On 16/01/2020 16:20, lukasz.luba@....com wrote:
>>> From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> +enum em_type {
>>> +	EM_SIMPLE,
>>> +	EM_CPU,
>>> +};
>>
>> s/EM_SIMPLE/EM_DEV ?
>>
>> Right now I only see energy models and _one_ specific type (the CPU EM).
>> So a tag 'is a CPU EM' would suffice. No need for EM_SIMPE ...
> 
> Wait, you even have
> 
> struct em_device {
>          struct em_perf_domain *em_pd;
>          struct device *dev;
>          ...
> }
> 
> static bool _is_cpu_device(struct device *dev)
> 
> Shouldn't this be enough to distinguish between EM and special CPU EM
> under the API? Even when required to use container_of() to get from
> em_perf_domain to device.
> 

Agree, I will remove this em_type related code.

Lukasz