linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v3 3/6] cpufreq: qcom-cpufreq-hw: Add dcvs interrupt support

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]

Message-ID: <20210712043514.ijp6cm3zuri7u5hb@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Mon, 12 Jul 2021 10:05:14 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org>,
        Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
Cc:     agross@...nel.org, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, rui.zhang@...el.com,
        daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, rjw@...ysocki.net, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        tdas@...eaurora.org, mka@...omium.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch v3 3/6] cpufreq: qcom-cpufreq-hw: Add dcvs interrupt
 support

+Lukasz,

On 09-07-21, 11:37, Thara Gopinath wrote:
> On 7/9/21 2:46 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 08-07-21, 08:06, Thara Gopinath wrote:
> > >   static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > >   {
> > >   	struct platform_device *pdev = cpufreq_get_driver_data();
> > > @@ -370,6 +480,10 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > >   			dev_warn(cpu_dev, "failed to enable boost: %d\n", ret);
> > >   	}
> > > +	ret = qcom_cpufreq_hw_lmh_init(policy, index);
> > 
> > You missed unregistering EM here (which is also missing from exit,
> > which you need to fix first in a separate patch).
> 
> Hi!
> 
> So how exactly do you do this? I checked other users of the api and I do not
> see any free.

Lukasz,

I don't see the cpufreq drivers ever calling dev_pm_opp_of_unregister_em(), and
even if they called, it would translate to em_dev_unregister_perf_domain(),
which has this:

	if (_is_cpu_device(dev))
		return;

I am not sure what's going on here, can you help ?

-- 
viresh