linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/9] OPP: Extend support for the opp-level beyond required-opps

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]

Date:   Wed, 4 Oct 2023 11:06:53 +0200
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...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
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] OPP: Extend support for the opp-level beyond required-opps

On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 at 07:04, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 03-10-23, 14:36, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > Can you please explain further on this. Rafael has acked those
> > patches, so it should be perfectly fine for you to pick them via your
> > tree too. There is no need to defer them.
>
> Ahh, then it is fine.
>
> > > I will then push out a branch and you can
> > > rebase your patches on top of it ? And then probably Sudeep or someone else can
> > > apply everything ?
> >
> > Or are you suggesting to just take one of the patches from my series,
> > and then I will re-base everything on top?
> >
> > Just trying to understand the way forward. :-)
>
> Applied patches 1-6/9 and the fixed routine looks like this now:
>
> +static int _set_opp_level(struct device *dev, struct opp_table *opp_table,
> +                         struct dev_pm_opp *opp)
> +{
> +       unsigned int level = 0;
> +       int ret = 0;
> +
> +       if (opp) {
> +               if (!opp->level)
> +                       return 0;
> +
> +               level = opp->level;
> +       }
> +
> +       /* Request a new performance state through the device's PM domain. */
> +       ret = dev_pm_domain_set_performance_state(dev, level);
> +       if (ret)
> +               dev_err(dev, "Failed to set performance state %u (%d)\n", level,
> +                       ret);
> +
> +       return ret;
> +}
>
> Does it look okay now ?

Yes, perfect! Thanks for helping out!

Kind regards
Uffe