linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] clk: Implement a clock request API

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: <20211215140836.bpxyau4atm74sfkk@houat>
Date:   Wed, 15 Dec 2021 15:08:36 +0100
From:   Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>
To:     Mike Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>
Cc:     linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        Dave Stevenson <dave.stevenson@...pberrypi.com>,
        Phil Elwell <phil@...pberrypi.com>,
        Tim Gover <tim.gover@...pberrypi.com>,
        Dom Cobley <dom@...pberrypi.com>,
        Emma Anholt <emma@...olt.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] clk: Implement a clock request API

Hi Stephen, Mike,

On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 11:35:12AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This is a follow-up of the discussion here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-clk/20210319150355.xzw7ikwdaga2dwhv@gilmour/
> 
> This implements a mechanism to raise and lower clock rates based on consumer
> workloads, with an example of such an implementation for the RaspberryPi4 HDMI
> controller.
> 
> There's a couple of things worth discussing:
> 
>   - The name is in conflict with clk_request_rate, and even though it feels
>     like the right name to me, we should probably avoid any confusion
> 
>   - The code so far implements a policy of always going for the lowest rate
>     possible. While we don't have an use-case for something else, this should
>     maybe be made more flexible?

This has been posted around 8 monthes ago now:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210413101320.321584-1-maxime@cerno.tech/

I haven't had any review on this, and I'm struggling to see how we can
move forward. Given your initial reaction, I'm guessing you were a bit
reluctant at first with the approach, if so, can you share *any*
direction in which I should amend that series to support similar
features?

Maxime

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)