linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] firmware: arm_scmi: Increase the maximum opp count

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: <c5b46d5f-8a8c-f949-43da-943c86c0634a@quicinc.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Dec 2023 00:46:23 +0530
From:   Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@...cinc.com>
To:     Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
CC:     <sudeep.holla@....com>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <quic_mdtipton@...cinc.com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <quic_asartor@...cinc.com>,
        <quic_lingutla@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] firmware: arm_scmi: Increase the maximum opp count



On 11/30/23 18:30, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:27:48PM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote:
>> The number of opps on certain variants of the X1E80100 SoC are greater
>> than current maximum, so increase the MAX_OPP count to the next log level
>> to accommodate that.
>>
> 
> Hi,

Hey Cristian,
Thanks for taking time to review the series.

> 
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@...cinc.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
>> index 3344ce3a2026..edf34a3c4d6a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
>> @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
>>   #include "protocols.h"
>>   #include "notify.h"
>>   
>> -#define MAX_OPPS		16
>> +#define MAX_OPPS		24
>>
> 
> There is an hashtable, opps_by_freq, sized by an ilog2()....
> 
> ....so, can we stick to a power-of-2 like 32 instead ?
> (and be more future proof too...)

Thanks, will get this changed in the next re-spin.

> 
> Other than this, LGTM
> 
> Reviewed-by: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
> 
> Thanks,
> Cristian