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  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]
Date:   Tue, 29 Sep 2020 16:53:12 -0700
From:   Doug Anderson <>
To:     Lukasz Luba <>
Cc:     LKML <>,
        Linux PM <>,,
        Jonathan Corbet <>,
        Daniel Lezcano <>,, Quentin Perret <>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
        Rajendra Nayak <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] docs: Clarify abstract scale usage for power values
 in Energy Model


On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 5:16 AM Lukasz Luba <> wrote:
> The Energy Model (EM) can store power values in milli-Watts or in abstract
> scale. This might cause issues in the subsystems which use the EM for
> estimating the device power, such as:
> - mixing of different scales in a subsystem which uses multiple
>   (cooling) devices (e.g. thermal Intelligent Power Allocation (IPA))
> - assuming that energy [milli-Joules] can be derived from the EM power
>   values which might not be possible since the power scale doesn't have to
>   be in milli-Watts
> To avoid misconfiguration add the needed documentation to the EM and
> related subsystems: EAS and IPA.
> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <>
> ---
>  .../driver-api/thermal/power_allocator.rst          |  8 ++++++++
>  Documentation/power/energy-model.rst                | 13 +++++++++++++
>  Documentation/scheduler/sched-energy.rst            |  5 +++++
>  3 files changed, 26 insertions(+)

I haven't read through these files in massive detail, but the quick
skim makes me believe that your additions seem sane.  In general, I'm
happy with documenting reality, thus:

Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <>

I will note: you haven't actually updated the device tree bindings.
Thus, presumably, anyone who is specifying these numbers in the device
tree is still supposed to specify them in a way that mW can be
recovered, right?  Said another way: nothing about your patches makes
it OK to specify numbers in device trees using an "abstract scale",


Powered by blists - more mailing lists