linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: scmi: Skip SCMI devices that aren't used by the CPUs

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: <Z/0rAfQjxjZEAIeP@hu-mdtipton-lv.qualcomm.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 08:34:25 -0700
From: Mike Tipton <quic_mdtipton@...cinc.com>
To: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....nxp.com>
CC: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Cristian Marussi
	<cristian.marussi@....com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Viresh
 Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, <arm-scmi@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: scmi: Skip SCMI devices that aren't used by the
 CPUs

On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 06:28:14PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> Hi Sudeep,
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 09:23:24AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >Hi Peng,
> >
> >On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 04:38:32PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> >> Hi Mike,
> >> On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 02:29:41PM -0700, Mike Tipton wrote:
> >> >Currently, all SCMI devices with performance domains attempt to register
> >> >a cpufreq driver,
> >> 
> >> The scmi cpufreq device is created based on entry
> >> { SCMI_PROTOCOL_PERF, "cpufreq" },
> >> 
> >> So the scmi-cpufreq driver could only probe the upper single device.
> >> 
> >> How could the driver work with all SCMI devices with performance domains?
> >> 
> >
> >IIUC, this is on a system with multiple SCMI servers/providers some of
> >which don't deal with CPU performance domains at all.
> 
> Yeah. This sounds valid case.
> CPU perf only needs to be managed by one server, the other server
> also has performance domains that only for peripherals.

Yeah, this is the case we're trying to fix.

> 
> Thanks,
> Peng
> 
> >
> >-- 
> >Regards,
> >Sudeep