linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] Support dynamic EMC frequency scaling on Tegra186/Tegra194

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: <CALHNRZ8rxyRvb1GCifeXRKjPkkBE+sK6VnPc2nS01iZV_NcjaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2025 01:37:49 -0500
From: Aaron Kling <webgeek1234@...il.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>, Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>, 
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Support dynamic EMC frequency scaling on Tegra186/Tegra194

On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 1:20 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On 02/09/2025 18:51, Aaron Kling wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 3:23 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Aug 31, 2025 at 10:33:48PM -0500, Aaron Kling wrote:
> >>> This series borrows the concept used on Tegra234 to scale EMC based on
> >>> CPU frequency and applies it to Tegra186 and Tegra194. Except that the
> >>> bpmp on those archs does not support bandwidth manager, so the scaling
> >>> iteself is handled similar to how Tegra124 currently works.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Three different subsystems and no single explanation of dependencies and
> >> how this can be merged.
> >
> > The only cross-subsystem hard dependency is that patches 5 and 6 need
> > patches 1 and 2 respectively. Patch 5 logically needs patch 3 to
> > operate as expected, but there should not be compile compile or probe
> > failures if those are out of order. How would you expect this to be
> > presented in a cover letter?
>
> Also, placing cpufreq patch between two memory controller patches means
> you really make it more difficult to apply it for the maintainers.
> Really, think thoroughly how this patchset is supposed to be read.

This is making me more confused. My understanding was that a series
like this that has binding, driver, and dt changes would flow like
that: all bindings first, all driver changes in the middle, and all dt
changes last. Are you suggesting that this should be: cpufreq driver
-> bindings -> memory drivers -> dt? Are the bindings supposed to be
pulled with the driver changes? I had understood those to be managed
separately.

Aaron