linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 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: <113725e3-3e82-4921-b045-8d5be3fed8bf@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2025 04:25:15 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Aaron Kling <webgeek1234@...il.com>
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 v2 0/8] Support dynamic EMC frequency scaling on
 Tegra186/Tegra194

On 13/10/2025 04:18, Aaron Kling wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2025 at 7:05 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 09/09/2025 15:21, Aaron Kling via B4 Relay 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.
>>>
>>
>> Nothing improved:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250902-glittering-toucan-of-feminism-95fd9f@kuoka/
> 
> The dt changes should go last. The cpufreq and memory pieces can go in
> either order because the new code won't be used unless the dt pieces
> activate them.

Then cpufreq and memory should never have been part of same patchset.
Instead of simple command to apply it, maintainers need multiple steps.
Really, when you send patches, think how this should be handled and how
much effort this needs on maintainer side.

Best regards,
Krzysztof