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: <53065b03-22d5-fb78-aa6f-e4711b8ffd3b@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Thu, 19 Mar 2020 17:03:18 +0530
From:   Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Sibi Sankar <sibis@...eaurora.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 3/19/2020 4:38 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 19-03-20, 16:23, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/19/2020 3:54 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> I thought this series indeed is proposing to add that support in OPP core?
>> a.k.a "[RFC v3 06/10] opp: Allow multiple opp_tables to be mapped to a single device"
>>
>> These discussions are stalled for over 2 months now waiting on a response from Saravana.
>> Viresh, whats the way forward here and how long do we plan on waiting for Saravanas response?
> 
> I agree and I am equally worried about it. So lets clear the air a bit
> first. Can someone answer following :
> 
> - This series depends on the series from Saravana ? Right, so that
>    needs to get merged/accepted first ?
> 
> - If yes, then what is the way forward as Saravana isn't responding
>    right now ..

sure, I understand there is a dependency, however refusing to review the approach
(to add multiple OPPS tables per device) that this series is taking because of an outstanding
question which, if I read it right is "We can not add multiple OPP tables for a single device right now"
seems odd.

Its fine if you are not happy with the approach taken here and you can propose something else,
but it looks inevitable that we would need something like this to be supported (multiple OPP tables per device)
and hence the request to review the patches.

-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation