linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 08/11] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Extend bindings for protocol@13

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: <20230719151716.qhobfnclrjf4yqkg@bogus>
Date:   Wed, 19 Jul 2023 16:17:16 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Nikunj Kela <nkela@...cinc.com>,
        Prasad Sodagudi <psodagud@...cinc.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/11] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Extend
 bindings for protocol@13

On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 04:17:35PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> The protocol@13 node is describing the performance scaling option for the
> ARM SCMI interface, as a clock provider. This is unnecessary limiting, as
> performance scaling is in many cases not limited to switching a clock's
> frequency.
> 
> Therefore, let's extend the binding so the interface can be modelled as a
> generic performance domaintoo. The common way to describe this, is to use
> the "power-domain" DT bindings, so let's use that.
> 

One thing I forgot to ask earlier is how we can manage different domain IDs
for perf and power domains which is the case with current SCMI platforms as
the spec never mandated or can ever mandate the perf and power domains IDs
to match. They need not be same anyways.

--
Regards,
Sudeep