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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 13:01:47 +0000 From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca> To: Alex Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com> Cc: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>, "linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, "devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org" <devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>, Mark Zhang <markz@...dia.com>, Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@...il.com>, "linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCHv9 1/3] Runtime Interpreted Power Sequences On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Alex Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com> wrote: > On Wednesday 21 November 2012 16:48:45 Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >> If the power-off sequence disables a regulator that was supposed to be >> enabled by the power-on sequence (but wasn't enabled because of an >> error), the regulator_disable is still called when the driver runs the >> power-off sequence, isn't it? Regulator enables and disables are ref >> counted, and the enables should match the disables. > > And there collapses my theory. > >> > Failures might be better handled if sequences have some "recovery policy" >> > about what to do when they fail, as mentioned in the link above. As you >> > pointed out, the driver might not always know enough about the resources >> > involved to do the right thing. >> >> Yes, I think such recovery policy would be needed. > > Indeed, from your last paragraph this makes even more sense now. > > Oh, and I noticed I forgot to reply to this: > >> This I didn't understand. Doesn't "<&pwm 2 xyz>" point to a single >> device, no matter where and how many times it's used? > > That's true - however when dereferencing the phandle, the underlying framework > will try to acquire the PWM, which will result in failure if the same resource > is referenced several times. > > One could compare the phandles to avoid this, but in your example you must > know that for PWMs the "xyz" part is not relevant for comparison. > > This makes referencing of resources by name much easier to implement and more > elegant with respect to frameworks leveraging. I would rather (at least for how the DT bindings settle out) see the design separate the resource references from the sequence. ie. Declare which resources are used by a device's sequences all in one place and have the commands index into that. g. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists