linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] powercap/drivers/dtpm: Create a registering system

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]

Date:   Sun, 28 Mar 2021 13:11:30 +0200
From:   Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     rafael@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, lukasz.luba@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] powercap/drivers/dtpm: Create a registering system


Hi Greg,

On 28/03/2021 08:50, Greg KH wrote:

[ ... ]

>>> And any reason why you are not using "real" struct devices in this
>>> subsystem?  You seem to be rolling your own infrastructure for no good
>>> reason.  I imagine you want sysfs support next, right?
>>
>> Actually, the framework is on top of powercap, so it has de facto the
>> sysfs support. On the other side, the dtpm backends are tied with the
>> device they manage.
> 
> So why are they not a "real" device in the driver model?  It looks like
> you almost are wanting all of that functionality and are having to
> implement it "by hand" instead.

I'm sorry I misunderstanding your point. dtpm is the backend for the
powercap subsystem which is the generic subsystem to do power limitation.

We have:

struct dtpm_cpu {
	struct dtpm dtmp;
	...
}

struct dtpm {
	struct powercap powecap;
};

struct powercap {
	struct device dev;
};



-- 
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog