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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 10 Aug 2021 14:53:18 +0100
From:   Quentin Perret <>
To:     Lukasz Luba <>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <>,
        Rafael Wysocki <>,
        Vincent Donnefort <>,
        Andy Gross <>,
        Bjorn Andersson <>,
        Cristian Marussi <>,
        Fabio Estevam <>,
        Kevin Hilman <>,
        Matthias Brugger <>,
        NXP Linux Team <>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <>,
        Sascha Hauer <>,
        Shawn Guo <>,
        Sudeep Holla <>,,
        Vincent Guittot <>,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] cpufreq: Auto-register with energy model

On Tuesday 10 Aug 2021 at 14:25:15 (+0100), Lukasz Luba wrote:
> The way I see this is that the flag in cpufreq avoids
> mistakes potentially made by driver developer. It will automaticaly
> register the *simple* EM model via dev_pm_opp_of_register_em() on behalf
> of drivers (which is already done manually by drivers). The developer
> would just set the flag similarly to CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV and be sure
> it will register at the right time. Well tested flag approach should be
> safer, easier to understand, maintain.

I would agree with all that if calling dev_pm_opp_of_register_em() was
complicated, but that is not really the case. I don't think we ever call
PM_OPP directly from cpufreq core ATM, which makes a lot of sense if you
consider PM_OPP arch-specific. I could understand that we might accept a
little 'violation' of the abstraction with this series if there were
real benefits, but I just don't see them.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists