linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: power: Introduce 'assigned-performance-states' property

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: <159667186194.1360974.10053425753327700919@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date:   Wed, 05 Aug 2020 16:57:41 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
To:     Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, ulf.hansson@...aro.org
Cc:     linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: power: Introduce 'assigned-performance-states' property

Quoting Rajendra Nayak (2020-08-05 01:13:06)
> 
> On 8/5/2020 12:09 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Rajendra Nayak (2020-08-04 04:46:54)
> > 
> >> +       device's performance, also known as DVFS techniques. The list of performance
> >> +       state values should correspond to the list of power domains specified as part
> >> +       of the power-domains property.
> > 
> > This is different than assigned-clock-rates. I guess that's OK because
> > we don't need to assign parents with more specifiers. Maybe it should be
> > worded more strongly to clearly state that each cell corresponds to one
> > power domain? And that it should match the opp-level inside any OPP
> > table for the power domain?
> 
> Sure, I'll reword it to make it clear that we need the same number of cells
> as power-domains, and as you pointed out below that 0 corresponds to not setting
> anything.
> 
> For the matching of opp-level inside the OPP table of the power-domain, I don't
> think from the power-domain bindings we limit providers with only OPP tables to
> support performance states? It could be just a range that the provider manages
> internally?

Ok. The example made it match so maybe that can be clarified as well
that it doesn't need to match any OPP table performance state.