linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] OMAP GPIO - don't wake from suspend unless requested.

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]

Date:	Thu, 6 Sep 2012 12:57:46 +0530
From:	"Shilimkar, Santosh" <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
To:	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Tarun Kanti DebBarma <tarun.kanti@...com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, Benoit <b-cousson@...com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] OMAP GPIO - don't wake from suspend unless requested.

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:32 PM, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 11:18:09 +0530 "Shilimkar, Santosh"
> <santosh.shilimkar@...com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 8:35 AM, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 3 Sep 2012 22:59:06 -0700 "Shilimkar, Santosh"
>> > <santosh.shilimkar@...com> wrote:
>
>> >> After thinking bit more on this, the problem seems to be coming
>> >> mainly because the gpio device is runtime suspended bit early than
>> >> it should be. Similar issue seen with i2c driver as well. The i2c issue
>> >> was discussed with Rafael at LPC last week. The idea is to move
>> >> the pm_runtime_enable/disable() calls entirely up to the
>> >> _late/_early stage of device suspend/resume.
>> >> Will update this thread once I have further update.
>> >
>> > This won't be late enough.  IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND takes effect after all
>> > the _late callbacks have been called.
>> > I, too, spoke to Rafael about this in San Diego.  He seemed to agree with me
>> > that the interrupt needs to be masked in the ->suspend callback.  any later
>> > is too late.
>> >
>> Thanks for information about your discussion. Will wait for the patch then.
>>
>> Regards
>> santosh
>
> I already sent a patch - that is what started this thread :-)
>
> I include it below.
> You said "The patch doesn't seems to be correct" but didn't expand on why.
> Do you still think it is not correct?  I wouldn't be surprised if there is
> some case that it doesn't handle quite right, but it seems right to me.
>
Sorry I though you were talking about moving the "Checking wakeup interrupts"
bit early as discussed on the follow up of alternate suggested patch to make
use of  IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND.

I think we need to fix the issue seen with ' IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND'
patch. That is at least the expected way to manage suspend and wakeup
irq masks for a IRQCHIP.

Regards
Santosh
--
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/