linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PM / domains: Kconfig: always enable PM

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:	Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:25:58 -0800
From:	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / domains: Kconfig: always enable PM_RUNTIME when genpd enabled

"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net> writes:

> On Saturday, November 15, 2014 01:32:01 PM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> Hi Kevin,
>> 
>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org> wrote:
>> >>> It makes little sense to use generic power domains without runtime PM.
>> >>
>> >> Does it?
>> >> It still powers down the PM domains on system suspend (at least on my
>> >> boards ;-)
>> >
>> > Sure, but your devices are also using runtime PM, so I'm not sure how
>> > does that change my statement above?
>> 
>> I do mean with CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME turned off.
>> 
>> If PM domain support is disabled, s2ram will not power down the PM domains.
>
> But if PM_RUNTIME is enabled along with it, I don't think it will make much
> of a different, will it?
>
> Building the kernel with genpd and without PM_RUNTIME is possible today,
> but is it really useful?  To me, it only seems to make people try to
> reinvent the wheel "because PM_RUNTIME may be unset".
>
> I have to say I'm seriously considering to make PM_SLEEP select
> PM_RUNTIME too as that would make quite a few things a *lot* simpler.

Yes.  

If that were the case, we woudn't need the pm_runtime_force_* calls
either.

Kevin
--
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/