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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 19 Oct 2020 11:35:26 +0100
From:   Lukasz Luba <>
To:     Quentin Perret <>
Cc:     Daniel Lezcano <>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        Linux PM <>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <>,
        "" <>,
        Rob Herring <>,
        Amit Kucheria <>,
        Jonathan Corbet <>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <>,
        Doug Anderson <>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <>,
        "Nayak, Rajendra" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Clarify abstract scale usage for power values in
 Energy Model, EAS and IPA

On 10/16/20 5:02 PM, Quentin Perret wrote:
> 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.

Thank you Quentin for help in sorting this out.
I'll send the v3.


> Thanks!
> Quentin

Powered by blists - more mailing lists