linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] Documentation: EM: Describe new registration method using DT

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220224093717.3vsi4t26zcmoh2ra@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Thu, 24 Feb 2022 15:07:17 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        rafael@...nel.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, nm@...com,
        sboyd@...nel.org, mka@...omium.org, dianders@...omium.org,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] Documentation: EM: Describe new registration
 method using DT

On 24-02-22, 09:25, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> Our partners had a lot of issues with EM+EAS, because they were not
> aware of the internals of EM and limitations.
> 
> We've started to name two types of EM: 'advanced' and 'simple'.
> The 'simple' is the one which causes issues. Now when we contact with
> partners we ask if they use 'simple' EM and see some issues in EAS.
> This is a needed clarification and naming convention that we use.
> 
> Here the paragraph name is stressing the fact explicitly that
> from today we have the option to provide real power measurements using
> DT and it will be the 'advanced' EM.

I understand the background now, and since I am part of the same
community I can appreciate that. But being a maintainer, I have to say
that when we look at something from Upstream's point of view, we may
have to neglect/ignore the terminology used in downstream.

>From what I can see, there is no advancement here, as of now. This is
a very small change where we are getting pre-evaluated power values
from DT, instead of calculating them at runtime. The data may be more
correct, but the EM doesn't get advanced because of that. And so using
such terminology is only going to harm further. If EM gets a
"advanced" algorithm later on, which can improve things, then yes we
can call it advanced, but for now there is nothing.

-- 
viresh