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: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 08:21:47 +0000 From: "Chew, Chiau Ee" <chiau.ee.chew@...el.com> To: "Shevchenko, Andriy" <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>, "Koul, Vinod" <vinod.koul@...el.com> CC: Viresh Kumar <viresh.linux@...il.com>, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.jf.intel.com>, "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, "dmaengine@...r.kernel.org" <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: RE: [PATCH] dma: dw: Add suspend and resume handling for PCI mode DW_DMAC. Vinod, As mentioned by Andy, we are using *_noirq verion of suspend/resume PM callback whereby the callbacks would be executed after IRQ handlers have been disabled. If using SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS, it would be the normal suspend/resume PM callback. Looking at the Desginware DMAC platform code (drivers/dma/dw/platform.c), it is using the *_noirq suspend/resume PM callback. Is it advisable to use the normal suspend/resume PM callback instead of *_noirq suspend/PM callback? Thanks, Chiau Ee -----Original Message----- From: Shevchenko, Andriy Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 7:57 PM To: Koul, Vinod Cc: Chew, Chiau Ee; Viresh Kumar; Andy Shevchenko; Williams, Dan J; dmaengine@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma: dw: Add suspend and resume handling for PCI mode DW_DMAC. On Tue, 2013-12-10 at 15:40 +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:06:13PM +0800, Chew Chiau Ee wrote: > > From: Chew, Chiau Ee <chiau.ee.chew@...el.com> > > > > This is to disable/enable DW_DMAC hw during suspend/resume. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chew, Chiau Ee <chiau.ee.chew@...el.com> > > Acked-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/dma/dw/pci.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/dma/dw/pci.c b/drivers/dma/dw/pci.c index > > e89fc24..97bc3a2 100644 > > --- a/drivers/dma/dw/pci.c > > +++ b/drivers/dma/dw/pci.c > > @@ -75,6 +75,36 @@ static void dw_pci_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev) > > dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "can't remove device properly: %d\n", ret); > > } > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP > > + > > +static int dw_pci_suspend_noirq(struct device *dev) { > > + struct pci_dev *pci = to_pci_dev(dev); > > + struct dw_dma_chip *chip = pci_get_drvdata(pci); > > + > > + return dw_dma_suspend(chip); > > +}; > > + > > +static int dw_pci_resume_noirq(struct device *dev) { > > + struct pci_dev *pci = to_pci_dev(dev); > > + struct dw_dma_chip *chip = pci_get_drvdata(pci); > > + > > + return dw_dma_resume(chip); > > +}; > > + > > +#else /* !CONFIG_PM_SLEEP */ > > + > > +#define dw_pci_suspend_noirq NULL > > +#define dw_pci_resume_noirq NULL > > + > > +#endif /* !CONFIG_PM_SLEEP */ > How about SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS instead? So, we are using *_noirq versions of the functions here. What happened when we switch to normal ones? Any side effects? > > -- > ~Vinod > > + > > +static const struct dev_pm_ops dw_pci_dev_pm_ops = { > > + .suspend_noirq = dw_pci_suspend_noirq, > > + .resume_noirq = dw_pci_resume_noirq, }; > > + > > static DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE(dw_pci_id_table) = { > > /* Medfield */ > > { PCI_VDEVICE(INTEL, 0x0827), (kernel_ulong_t)&dw_pci_pdata }, @@ > > -92,6 +122,9 @@ static struct pci_driver dw_pci_driver = { > > .id_table = dw_pci_id_table, > > .probe = dw_pci_probe, > > .remove = dw_pci_remove, > > + .driver = { > > + .pm = &dw_pci_dev_pm_ops, > > + }, > > }; > > > > module_pci_driver(dw_pci_driver); > > -- > > 1.7.4.4 > > > -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com> Intel Finland Oy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists