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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 17:02:18 +0100 From: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com> To: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com> Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Amit Kucheria <amitk@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Dietmar Eggemann <Dietmar.Eggemann@....com>, Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>, Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>, "Nayak, Rajendra" <rnayak@...eaurora.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Clarify abstract scale usage for power values in Energy Model, EAS and IPA On Friday 16 Oct 2020 at 15:42:57 (+0100), Lukasz Luba wrote: > Do you mean a new entry in DT which will be always below > 'dynamic-power-coefficient' and/or 'sustainable-power' saying the unit > of above value? Yes, something like that. > There was discussion with Rob (and Doug) about this. I got the > impression he was against any new DT stuff [1]. > We don't have to, I think we all agree that DT will only support mW. Right, I agree this is a 'nice-to-have'. > I have agreed to this idea having a 'flag' inside EM [2], which > indicates the mW or bogoWatts. It could be set via API: > em_dev_register_perf_domain() and this new last argument. > > I can write that patch. There is only two usage (3rd is on LKML) of > that function. The DT way, which is via: > dev_pm_opp_of_register_em() will always set 'true'; > Driver direct calls of em_dev_register_perf_domain(), will have to > set appropriate value ('true' or 'false'). The EM struct em_perf_domain > will have the new bool field set based on that. > Is it make sense? I had something more complicated in mind, where units are arbitrary ('milliwats', 'scmi-bogowatts', ...) as that would help if units can be specified in the DT too, but if we don't care about that then yes I suppose a boolean flag should do. Thanks! Quentin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists