linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] cpufreq: Auto-register with energy model

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210811101449.c2533ediwboeplqj@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Wed, 11 Aug 2021 15:44:49 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
Cc:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@....com>,
        lukasz.luba@....com, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] cpufreq: Auto-register with energy model

On 11-08-21, 11:12, Quentin Perret wrote:
> I think using the ready() callback can work just fine as long as we
> document clearly it is important to register the EM from there and not
> anywhere else. The dedicated em_register() callback makes that a bit
> clearer and should avoid a bit of boilerplate in the driver, but it's
> not a big deal really, so I'm happy either way ;)

Yeah, I think just the same. It is better to have register_em as a
separate call. I was just wondering if it is the right choice :)

Anyway, I think ready() will get removed pretty soon, so register_em()
will work well. I will redo this series and send it.

-- 
viresh