linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] gpio: mxc: add power management support

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:   Sat, 14 Jul 2018 01:53:57 +0000
From:   Anson Huang <anson.huang@....com>
To:     Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>
CC:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] gpio: mxc: add power management support

Hi, Fabio

Anson Huang
Best Regards!


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fabio Estevam [mailto:festevam@...il.com]
> Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 2:34 AM
> To: Anson Huang <anson.huang@....com>
> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>; open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM
> <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>; linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>;
> dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: mxc: add power management support
> 
> Hi Anson,
> 
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 4:48 AM, Anson Huang <Anson.Huang@....com>
> wrote:
> > GPIO registers could lose context on some i.MX SoCs, like on i.MX7D,
> > when enter LPSR mode, the whole SoC
> 
> After further reviewing this patchI have a question: here you say that i.MX7D
> needs to save some registers.
> 
> > will be powered off except LPSR domain, GPIO banks will lose context
> > in this case, need to restore the context after resume from LPSR mode.
> >
> > This patch adds GPIO save/restore for those necessary registers, and
> > put the save/restore operations in noirq suspend/resume phase, since
> > GPIO is fundamental module which could be used by other peripherals'
> > resume phase.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Anson Huang <Anson.Huang@....com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpio/gpio-mxc.c | 68
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 68 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-mxc.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-mxc.c index
> > 2f28299..0fc52d8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-mxc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-mxc.c
> > @@ -45,6 +45,15 @@ struct mxc_gpio_hwdata {
> >         unsigned fall_edge;
> >  };
> >
> > +struct mxc_gpio_reg_saved {
> > +       u32 icr1;
> > +       u32 icr2;
> > +       u32 imr;
> > +       u32 gdir;
> > +       u32 edge_sel;
> > +       u32 dr;
> > +};
> > +
> >  struct mxc_gpio_port {
> >         struct list_head node;
> >         void __iomem *base;
> > @@ -55,6 +64,7 @@ struct mxc_gpio_port {
> >         struct gpio_chip gc;
> >         struct device *dev;
> >         u32 both_edges;
> > +       struct mxc_gpio_reg_saved gpio_saved_reg;
> >  };
> >
> >  static struct mxc_gpio_hwdata imx1_imx21_gpio_hwdata = { @@ -497,6
> > +507,8 @@ static int mxc_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >
> >         list_add_tail(&port->node, &mxc_gpio_ports);
> >
> > +       platform_set_drvdata(pdev, port);
> > +
> >         return 0;
> >
> >  out_irqdomain_remove:
> > @@ -507,11 +519,67 @@ static int mxc_gpio_probe(struct platform_device
> *pdev)
> >         return err;
> >  }
> >
> > +static void mxc_gpio_save_regs(struct mxc_gpio_port *port) {
> > +       if (mxc_gpio_hwtype == IMX21_GPIO)
> > +               return;
> 
> but here you only block IMX21_GPIO.
> 
> This means that mx31/mx35/mx51/mx53/mx6 will execute this code too now.
> Is this always safe?
> 
> Shouldn't it this save/restore be executed only on mx7d?
> 
> Please clarify.
Here are the details, i.MX7D LPSR mode and i.MX8QM/8QXP etc.' suspend/resume
may cause GPIO bank lose power, so need to save/restore, for other i.MX SoCs,
although no need to do save/restore, but doing it is NOT harmful, so do you think
we should add SoC type check here?

Anson.