linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] iommu/exynos: Use device dependency links to control runtime 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:11:18 +0100
From:   Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
To:     Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
Cc:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Inki Dae <inki.dae@...sung.com>, Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Tobias Jakobi <tjakobi@...h.uni-bielefeld.de>,
        Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
        Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] iommu/exynos: Use device dependency links to
 control runtime pm

Hi Lukas,


On 2016-11-19 12:11, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 08:27:12AM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>> On 2016-11-07 22:47, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>> If so
>>> why? If this issue is present also on systems that only use ACPI is
>>> this possibly due to an ACPI firmware bug  or the lack of some semantics
>>> in ACPI to express ordering in a better way? If the issue is device
>>> tree related only is this due to the lack of semantics in device tree
>>> to express some more complex dependency ?
>> The main feature of device links that is used in this patch is enabling
>> runtime pm dependency between Exynos SYSMMU controller (called it client
>> device) and the device, for which it implements DMA address translation
>> (called master device). The assumptions are following:
>> 1. master device driver is completely unaware of the Exynos SYSMMU presence,
>>     IOMMU is transparently hooked up and managed by DMA-mapping framework
>> 2. SYSMMU belongs to the same power domain as it's master device
>> 3. SYSMMU is optional, master device can fully operate without it, with
>>     simple DMA address translation (DMA address == physical address)
>> 4. Master device implements runtime pm, what in turn causes respective
>>     power domain to be turned on/off
>> 5. DMA-mapping and IOMMU frameworks provides no calls to notify SYSMMU
>>     when its master device is performing DMA operations, so SYSMMU has
>>     to be runtime active
>> 6. Currently SYSMMU always sets its runtime pm status to active after
>>     attaching to its master device to ensure proper hardware state. This
>>     prevents power domain to be turned off, even when master device sets
>>     its runtime pm status to suspended.
>> 7. Exynos SYSMMU has to be runtime active at the same time when its
>>     master device is runtime active to it to perform DMA operations and
>>     allow the power domain to be turned off, when master device is
>>     runtime suspended.
>> 8. The terms of device links, Exynos SYSMMU is a 'consumer' and master
>>     device is a 'supplier'.
> You seem to have mixed up the consumer and supplier in point 8 above.
> Your code is such that the SYSMMU is the supplier and the master device
> is the consumer:
>
> 	device_link_add(dev, data->sysmmu, DL_FLAG_PM_RUNTIME);
>
> Prototype of device_link_add:
>
> 	struct device_link *device_link_add(struct device *consumer,
> 				            struct device *supplier,
> 					    u32 flags);
>
> Your code is correct, only point 8 above is wrong.

Thanks for checking this. You are right that I mixed up consumer and 
supplier
in point 8. I'm sorry for the confusion.

Best regards
-- 
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland