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, 25 Oct 2023 18:03:30 +0200
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Stephan Gerhold <stephan@...hold.net>,
        Stephan Gerhold <stephan.gerhold@...nkonzept.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] OPP: Call dev_pm_opp_set_opp() for required OPPs

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 at 17:20, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 25-10-23, 14:17, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> > Thanks, this seems to work fine.
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
> > I found another small problem: In my OPP setup for MSM8916, some of the
> > required-opps point to an OPP with "opp-level = <0>" (see [1], the
> > <&rpmpd_opp_none> in the cpu-opp-table). This is because the vote for
> > the "CX" domain is for the CPU PLL clock source, which is only used for
> > the higher CPU frequencies (>= 998.4 MHz). With the previous code you
> > made it possible for me to vote for opp-level = <0> in commit
> > a5663c9b1e31 ("opp: Allow opp-level to be set to 0", discussion in [2]).
> > I think now it's broken because the _set_opp_level() added by Uffe
> > checks for if (!opp->level) as a sign that there is no opp-level defined
> > at all.

I don't think my patch broke it, I just followed the similar semantics
of how we treated the OPPs for the required opps.

As far as I understood it, the only way we could request the
performance-level to be zero, was if the consumer driver would call
dev_pm_opp_set_opp(dev, NULL);

So, unless I am overlooking something, things can have been screwed up
earlier too?

>
> Yes, we broke that. I think a simple fix is to initialize the level
> with an impossible value, like -1 and then 0 becomes valid.

Yep, make sense, let's fix it!

Are you sending a patch?

[...]

Kind regards
Uffe

Powered by blists - more mailing lists