linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC v2] ARM: amba: Remove AMBA level regulator support

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:54:21 +0200
From:	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...ricsson.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	"spi-devel-general@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
	<spi-devel-general@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC v2] ARM: amba: Remove AMBA level regulator support

On 04/13/2012 11:18 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:03:56AM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>
>> But, how should those amba drivers that implements runtime PM
>> support be able to switch of the vcore regulator during normal
>> suspend? In normal suspend case we can not use
>
> A generic AMBA driver should have no idea about the implementation of
> the particular SoC that it's integrated on to.  This applies even more
> to system suspend (where drivers can generally just assume that they
> will loose all power normally) than it does to runtime suspend.
>
>> pm_runtime_put/pm_runtime_put_sync to trigger the power domain
>> runtime functions to switch of vcore. This is kind of more generic
>> problem when dealing with power domains, but as said this patch will
>> have consequences.
>
> The power domain gets callbacks on the system suspend path too and can
> do whatever is sensible there.
>
>> As far as I can see, the power domain must then implement a
>> suspend_noirq function to make sure same things is done as for the
>> runtime_suspend function. Do you agree with this as well or is there
>> another option?
>
> Yes, the power domain should just be handling this transparently.

Alright, thanks for your confirmation. Let's see how this works out then.

Kind regards
Ulf Hansson
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/