linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] 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: <20250506-stirring-competent-ladybug-9cadb5@sudeepholla>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2025 11:12:07 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Mike Tipton <quic_mdtipton@...cinc.com>
Cc: 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>, Peng Fan <peng.fan@....nxp.com>,
	Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] cpufreq: scmi: Skip SCMI devices that aren't used by
 the CPUs

On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 06:25:50PM -0700, Mike Tipton wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 07:47:28AM -0700, Mike Tipton wrote:
> > Currently, all SCMI devices with performance domains attempt to register
> > a cpufreq driver, even if their performance domains aren't used to
> > control the CPUs. The cpufreq framework only supports registering a
> > single driver, so only the first device will succeed. And if that device
> > isn't used for the CPUs, then cpufreq will scale the wrong domains.
> > 
> > To avoid this, return early from scmi_cpufreq_probe() if the probing
> > SCMI device isn't referenced by the CPU device phandles.
> > 
> > This keeps the existing assumption that all CPUs are controlled by a
> > single SCMI device.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Tipton <quic_mdtipton@...cinc.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
> > ---
> 
> Hi Sudeep / Viresh,
> 
> Any thoughts on this?
> 

I have actually queued and forgot to respond. Though I realise the change
is not dependent on any other changes now.

Viresh, hope you are OK with me taking this change or do you prefer to take
it via your tree ? I am fine with that as well.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep