linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/6] drm: msm: a6xx: send opp instead of a frequency

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200515005817.GW4525@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 May 2020 17:58:17 -0700
From:   Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
To:     Sharat Masetty <smasetty@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...edesktop.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jcrouse@...eaurora.org,
        georgi.djakov@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] drm: msm: a6xx: send opp instead of a frequency

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 05:39:57PM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 04:24:17PM +0530, Sharat Masetty wrote:
> > This patch changes the plumbing to send the devfreq recommended opp rather
> > than the frequency. Also consolidate and rearrange the code in a6xx to set
> > the GPU frequency and the icc vote in preparation for the upcoming
> > changes for GPU->DDR scaling votes.
> 
> Could this be relatively easily split in two patches, one passing the OPP
> instead of the frequency, and another doing the consolidation? It typically
> makes reviewing easier when logically unrelated changes are done in separate
> patches.

After looking at the "upcoming changes for GPU->DDR scaling votes", which is
essentially one line I'm doubting if the splitting would actually make sense.
I'm now rather inclined to see "drm: msm: a6xx: use dev_pm_opp_set_bw to set
DDR bandwidth" squashed into this patch.