linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 1/2] cpufreq: mediatek-hw: Add support for CPUFREQ HW

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 28 Jun 2021 12:56:41 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Hector Yuan <hector.yuan@...iatek.com>, Sudeep.Holla@....com
Cc:     linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, wsd_upstream@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 1/2] cpufreq: mediatek-hw: Add support for CPUFREQ HW

On 27-06-21, 16:17, Hector Yuan wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-06-14 at 16:10 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 30-05-21, 00:52, Hector Yuan wrote:
> > > +static int mtk_get_related_cpus(int index, struct cpufreq_mtk *c)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct device_node *cpu_np;
> > > +	struct of_phandle_args args;
> > > +	int cpu, ret;
> > > +
> > > +	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > > +		cpu_np = of_cpu_device_node_get(cpu);
> > > +		if (!cpu_np)
> > > +			continue;
> > > +
> > > +		ret = of_parse_phandle_with_args(cpu_np, "performance-domains",
> > > +						 "#performance-domain-cells", 0,
> > > +						 &args);
> > > +		of_node_put(cpu_np);
> > > +		if (ret < 0)
> > > +			continue;
> > > +
> > > +		if (index == args.args[0]) {
> > > +			cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &c->related_cpus);
> > > +			mtk_freq_domain_map[cpu] = c;
> > > +		}
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	return 0;
> > > +}
> > 
> > I really hope this can be moved to a common place as more than one
> > drier should be required to parse this thing.
> > 
> 
> Yes, this can be a common part for all performance domain users. But may
> I know whats your suggestion? Put this API in another file or? Thanks

Rob, Sudeep: You guys have a suggestion on where can we keep a routine for this
?

-- 
viresh