linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] qcom: add basic interconnect support to UFS

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: <3827d6e3-d9cb-7001-eb3d-c7fb2466263f@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2023 16:40:34 +0200
From:   Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Brian Masney <bmasney@...hat.com>, andersson@...nel.org
Cc:     agross@...nel.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] qcom: add basic interconnect support to UFS

On 17/11/2022 13:12, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 17/11/2022 11:49, Brian Masney wrote:
>> This patch set adds very basic support for the interconnect framework
>> to the Qualcomm portion of the UFS framework since the firmware on
>> these platforms expects the interconnect votes to be present. The
>> maximum throughput is requested to match what's already done in a few
>> other drivers.
>>
>> Here's the relevant entries from the interconnect_summary file in
>> debugfs that shows the two ICC paths are setup for the first UFS
>> host controller on the SA8540p automotive board (sc8280xp).
> 
> I wonder whether this is solving the same or orthogonal problem as my
> old patchset here:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220513061347.46480-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org/

More or less it does. Vendor kernel scales both paths according to the 
gear selected. I was surprised to see just two entries there. sdm845 has 
22 entries in its msm-bus scaling table. What was the reason for just 
two entries in your case?

What was the net result for that patchset? Is it going to be merged 
anytime?

I think we can start with just a version of this patchset that enables 
static ICC config and then upgrade that with proper OPP tables, WDYT?

(I wrote 'a version' since I had to modify the patch to set avg_bw 
instead of setting the peak_bw and to pass different values instead of 
UINT_MAX, I'll send it).

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry