linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 2/2] 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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210817034206.hmpjdz4bqvwxfn3c@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Tue, 17 Aug 2021 09:12:06 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Hector Yuan <hector.yuan@...iatek.com>
Cc:     linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, wsd_upstream@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 2/2] cpufreq: mediatek-hw: Add support for CPUFREQ HW

On 16-08-21, 20:56, Hector Yuan wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-08-03 at 12:43 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 30-07-21, 00:08, Hector Yuan wrote:
> > > +	for (i = REG_FREQ_LUT_TABLE; i < REG_ARRAY_SIZE; i++)
> > > +		c->reg_bases[i] = base + offsets[i];
> > > +
> > > +	ret = of_perf_domain_get_sharing_cpumask(index, "performance-domains",
> > 
> > Instead of parsing parsing "performance-domains" twice, I would rather
> > pass a CPU number here instead of index.
> > 
> Sorry, could you give me more details? For now, will use index to parse
> per-cpu to related cpus.You mean pass policy->cpu or? Thanks.

Yes, pass the cpu number from policy->cpu instead.

> > > +	latency = readl_relaxed(c->reg_bases[REG_FREQ_LATENCY]);
> > > +	if (!latency)
> > > +		latency = CPUFREQ_ETERNAL;
> > > +
> > > +	/* us convert to ns */
> > > +	policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = latency * 1000;
> > 
> > You want to multiple CPUFREQ_ETERNAL too ?

s/multiple/multiply/

Sorry about this.

> Yes, may be different power domain with different transition latency.
> > > +
> > > +	policy->fast_switch_possible = true;
> > > +
> > > +	qos_request = kzalloc(sizeof(*qos_request), GFP_KERNEL);
> > 
> > This is a small structure, why not allocate it on stack instead ?
> > 
> For qos part, we'd like to take more time to re-consider the SW flow and
> put this to another patch set.Is this okay to you?

So you will drop entire qos stuff ? Fine by me.

-- 
viresh