linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/6] PM: opp: allow control of multiple clocks

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

Message-ID: <20220526102749.5tj5ttr5wxwfdrhh@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Thu, 26 May 2022 15:57:49 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Cc:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Taniya Das <tdas@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/6] PM: opp: allow control of multiple clocks

On 25-05-22, 09:04, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> I'm saying that each OPP table would be for a single clk, but they would
> be connected through required-opps for the device's OPP table.

Ahh, okay.

> It would
> mean that dev_pm_opp_set_clkname() would need extension to let a driver
> indicate which clk is associated with an OPP table.

Hmm, just that it complicates simple cases. Lets see.

> From your other
> reply on v3 it seems that you're leaning towards having an array of
> frequency values in the OPP table instead of doing table linking?

I am not against that to be honest, we have done that for voltages and
current already. I am just not fine with having any one of them as the
primary clock. I liked your idea of reusing "level" for that.

I have started some rewriting of the core, to simplify things and
reduce the number of ever increasing APIs (which you suggested earlier
once). Lets see where we land eventually.

-- 
viresh