linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] arm64: dts: qcom: x1e80100: Enable cpufreq

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: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 12:09:59 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@...cinc.com>
Cc: <cristian.marussi@....com>, <andersson@...nel.org>,
	<konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
	<robh+dt@...nel.org>, <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <quic_rgottimu@...cinc.com>,
	<quic_kshivnan@...cinc.com>, <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	<quic_gkohli@...cinc.com>, <quic_nkela@...cinc.com>,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>, <quic_psodagud@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] arm64: dts: qcom: x1e80100: Enable cpufreq

On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 03:20:44PM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> Enable cpufreq on X1E80100 SoCs through the SCMI perf protocol node.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@...cinc.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/x1e80100.dtsi | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/x1e80100.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/x1e80100.dtsi
> index 4e0ec859ed61..d1d232cd1f25 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/x1e80100.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/x1e80100.dtsi
> @@ -68,6 +68,7 @@ CPU0: cpu@0 {
>  			compatible = "qcom,oryon";
>  			reg = <0x0 0x0>;
>  			enable-method = "psci";
> +			clocks = <&scmi_dvfs 0>;
>  			next-level-cache = <&L2_0>;
>  			power-domains = <&CPU_PD0>;
>  			power-domain-names = "psci";


Any reason why you wouldn't want to use the new genpd based perf controls.
IIRC it was added based on mainly Qcom platform requirements.

-                     clocks = <&scmi_dvfs 0>;
		      next-level-cache = <&L2_0>;
-  		      power-domains = <&CPU_PD0>;
-  		      power-domain-names = "psci";
+                     power-domains = <&CPU_PD0>, <&scmi_dvfs 0>;
+                     power-domain-names = "psci", "perf";


And the associated changes in the scmi dvfs node for cells property.

This change is OK but just wanted to check the reasoning for the choice.

--
Regards,
Sudeep