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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <927bb145-abf8-a15a-506f-0f060384d096@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Feb 2022 09:39:52 +0000
From:   Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
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 2/24/22 09:37, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> 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.

I understand your upstream point of view.

> 
>  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.
> 

Fair enough, I'll drop this word from the paragraph name.