linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq statistics retrieved by drivers

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: <20200731155650.GC14529@bogus>
Date:   Fri, 31 Jul 2020 16:56:50 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, cristian.marussi@....com,
        rjw@...ysocki.net, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq statistics retrieved by drivers

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 10:36:51AM +0100, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> 
> In this case I think we would have to create debugfs.
> Sudeep do you think these debugfs should be exposed from the protocol
> layer:
> drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c

I prefer above over cpufreq as we can support for all the devices not
just cpus which avoids adding similar support elsewhere(mostly devfreq)

> or maybe from the cpufreq scmi driver? I would probably be safer to have
> it in the cpufreq driver because we have scmi_handle there.
>

Cristian was thinking if we can consolidate all such debugfs under one
device may be and that should eliminate your handle restriction. I would
like to see how that works out in implementation but I don't have any 
better suggestion ATM.

--
Regards,
Sudeep