linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] scmi-cpufreq: Set transition_delay

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 11:42:43 +0000
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
	Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....com>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3]  scmi-cpufreq: Set transition_delay_us

On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 12:30:58PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 22-02-24, 14:56, Pierre Gondois wrote:
> > policy's fields definitions:
> > `transition_delay_us`:
> > The minimum amount of time between two consecutive freq. requests
> > for one policy.
> > `transition_latency`:
> > Delta between freq. change request and effective freq. change on
> > the hardware.
> >
> > cpufreq_policy_transition_delay_us() uses the `transition_delay_us`
> > value if available. Otherwise a value is induced from the policy's
> > `transition_latency`.
> >
> > The scmi-cpufreq driver doesn't populate the `transition_delay_us`.
> > Values matching the definition are available through the SCMI
> > specification.
> > Add support to fetch these values and use them in the scmi-cpufreq
> > driver.
>
> How do we merge this series ? I can only pick the last commit.

I have sent my PR for v6.9 already and was deferring this to v6.10
The changes look good to me. If it doesn't conflict much with -next
SCMI content, then I am happy to ack and you can take all of them
together. Otherwise we can revisit strategy at -rc1. Thoughts ?

--
Regards,
Sudeep