linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] powercap: Add Power Limit4 support

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

Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0iZvGzZU15-bkxaFi3Q=4Sd4h+B0Z9pHPMGzCgMvMDX2g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Jul 2020 14:19:41 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     "Shevchenko, Andriy" <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Sumeet Pawnikar <sumeet.r.pawnikar@...el.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] powercap: Add Power Limit4 support

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:13 PM Shevchenko, Andriy
<andriy.shevchenko@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 01:46:12PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 7:38 PM Sumeet Pawnikar
> > <sumeet.r.pawnikar@...el.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Modern Intel Mobile platforms support power limit4 (PL4), which is
> > > the SoC package level maximum power limit (in Watts). It can be used
> > > to preemptively limits potential SoC power to prevent power spikes
> > > from tripping the power adapter and battery over-current protection.
> > > This patch enables this feature by exposing package level peak power
> > > capping control to userspace via RAPL sysfs interface. With this,
> > > application like DTPF can modify PL4 power limit, the similar way
> > > of other package power limit (PL1).
> > > As this feature is not tested on previous generations, here it is
> > > enabled only for the platform that has been verified to work,
> > > for safety concerns.
> >
> > Queued up as 5.9 material ->
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sumeet Pawnikar <sumeet.r.pawnikar@...el.com>
> > > Co-developed-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
> >
> > -> with this tag removed, because the only case in which you can
> > include an S-o-b from someone else is when you also add a From:
> > pointing to that person.  IOW, you add a From: with a matching S-o-b
> > from someone else and you can add your own S-o-b to that.
> >
> > In this particular case, the C-d-b tag is sufficient to make a record
> > of somebody else's contribution to a patch carrying a From: header
> > that points to you (ie. your patch).
>
> Rafael, it looks like it contradicts documentation. I mean your amendment.
> SoB is specifically required to be coupled with Co-developed-by. That said,
> both or none are acceptable. (I don't consider the chain of SoB when it goes
> thru maintainers)

OK, I stand corrected and so I've added the Rui's S-o-b back to the commit.

Thanks!