linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 0/5] arm_scmi: vendors: Qualcomm Generic Vendor Extensions

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: <b9b6d00f-2462-d9a8-2ca5-7f13ae68e941@quicinc.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 13:54:33 +0530
From: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@...cinc.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
CC: <sudeep.holla@....com>, <cristian.marussi@....com>, <andersson@...nel.org>,
        <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <quic_rgottimu@...cinc.com>,
        <quic_kshivnan@...cinc.com>, <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        <arm-scmi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/5] arm_scmi: vendors: Qualcomm Generic Vendor
 Extensions



On 10/8/24 12:22, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 11:40:18AM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote:
>> The QCOM SCMI vendor protocol provides a generic way of exposing a
>> number of Qualcomm SoC specific features (like memory bus scaling)
>> through a mixture of pre-determined algorithm strings and param_id
>> pairs hosted on the SCMI controller. Introduce a client driver that
>> uses the memlat algorithm string hosted on QCOM SCMI Vendor Protocol
>> to detect memory latency workloads and control frequency/level of
>> the various memory buses (DDR/LLCC/DDR_QOS).
> 
> None of your patches are wrapped according to Linux coding style which
> makes reviewing more difficult than it should be. And before you answer
> with checkpatch, checkpatch is not a coding style.

I can see that you've been a reviewer of this series from the very
initial version. That would imply you had a chance to shape/guide the
series to whatever shape you prefer. Yet you choose not to do so and
make a blanket statement now that it's close to merge in v4 :/

-Sibi

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>