linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] ARM: OMAP2+: omap_device: maintain sane runtime pm status around suspend/resume

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:	Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:19:46 -0600
From:	Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
To:	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>
Cc:	balbi@...com, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>, Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...com>,
	linux-omap <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] ARM: OMAP2+: omap_device: maintain sane runtime pm
 status around suspend/resume

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org> wrote:
> Nishanth Menon <nm@...com> writes:
>
>> On 11/13/2013 06:51 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 05:08:30PM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c
>>>> index b69dd9a..f97b34b 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c
>>>> @@ -621,6 +621,7 @@ static int _od_suspend_noirq(struct device *dev)
>>>>
>>>>     if (!ret && !pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev)) {
>>>>             if (pm_generic_runtime_suspend(dev) == 0) {
>>>> +                   pm_runtime_set_suspended(dev);
>>>
>>> don't you have to disable pm_runtime around status changes ? Or is
>>> pm_runtime already disabled by the time we get here ?
>>
>> pm_runtime is already disabled by the time no_irq suspend is invoked.
>>
>>>
>>>> @@ -634,10 +635,10 @@ static int _od_resume_noirq(struct device *dev)
>>>>     struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dev);
>>>>     struct omap_device *od = to_omap_device(pdev);
>>>>
>>>> -   if ((od->flags & OMAP_DEVICE_SUSPENDED) &&
>>>> -       !pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev)) {
>>>> +   if (od->flags & OMAP_DEVICE_SUSPENDED) {
>>>>             od->flags &= ~OMAP_DEVICE_SUSPENDED;
>>>>             omap_device_enable(pdev);
>>>> +           pm_runtime_set_active(dev);
>>>
>>> ditto, also pm_runtime_set_active() may fail.
>>>
>> again, pm_runtime is not yet active here yet - we just restore the pm
>> runtime state with which we went down with -> and that is not expected
>> to fail either - So, how about just adding a WARN if our expectation
>> of balanced operation was somehow broken in the future with changes to
>> runtime framework?
>
> And also a note in the changelog (or comment at the WARN) about the
> assumption that runtime PM is disabled at this point.

Ofcourse. will do.

--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
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/