linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v3 00/10] DDR/L3 Scaling support on SDM845 and SC7180 SoCs

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: <ea4265f3f4b5a439d70d3c80bcc77b7f@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Thu, 19 Mar 2020 15:41:15 +0530
From:   Sibi Sankar <sibis@...eaurora.org>
To:     Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, sboyd@...nel.org,
        georgi.djakov@...aro.org, saravanak@...gle.com, nm@...com,
        bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, agross@...nel.org,
        david.brown@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        rjw@...ysocki.net, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, dianders@...omium.org, mka@...omium.org,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, amit.kucheria@...aro.org,
        ulf.hansson@...aro.org, linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 00/10] DDR/L3 Scaling support on SDM845 and SC7180 SoCs

On 2020-03-19 15:12, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> On 3/18/2020 9:12 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 18-03-20, 02:13, Sibi Sankar wrote:
>>> On 2020-01-28 01:33, Sibi Sankar wrote:
>>>> This RFC series aims to extend cpu based scaling support to L3/DDR 
>>>> on
>>>> SDM845 and SC7180 SoCs.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hey Viresh/Saravana,
>>> 
>>> Ping! Can you take a stab at reviewing
>>> the series, it has been on the list for
>>> a while now.
>> 
>> I believe this depends on Saravana's series on which I have raised
>> some doubts few weeks back ? I am still waiting for them to get
>> clarified by him.

Viresh,
Saravana's example does show a device
with multiple opp tables but doesn't
need multiple opp table support to
land though (since it works fine with
the current implementation). I am more
interested  in understanding your/
Stephen's/Saravana's stance on adding
multiple opp-table support. Personally
I feel its inevitable, since multiple
qc drivers using interconnect opp-tables,
routinely need vote on multiple paths in
a non-trivial manner.

> 
> Could you please post a link to the discussion that you are referring 
> to here?
> I looked at a few links posted in the cover letter as dependencies and 
> it seems
> like the discussions are pending for *months* and not weeks but I
> might have looked
> at the wrong ones.

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200114103448.odnvqawnqb3twst5@vireshk-i7/

Rajendra,
Viresh is referring to ^^ one

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.