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: <CALHNRZ8r_bg-Pm1ZCoJT9sk++zQcq85R=8N6enL_Vcq=VziNwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2025 21:31:16 -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 v2 0/8] Support dynamic EMC frequency scaling on Tegra186/Tegra194

On Sun, Oct 12, 2025 at 9:25 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> 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.

To be honest, I was expecting all of these to go through the tegra
tree, since all the drivers I touch are owned by the tegra
maintainers. But getting stuff moved through that tree has been like
pulling teeth recently. So Krzysztof, what's the alternative you're
suggesting here?

Aaron