linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] mach-omap2: handle autoidle denial

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:   Thu, 29 Nov 2018 23:57:45 -0800
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To:     Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>,
        Tero Kristo <t-kristo@...com>, bcousson@...libre.com,
        letux-kernel@...nphoenux.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
        mturquette@...libre.com, paul@...an.com, tony@...mide.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] mach-omap2: handle autoidle denial

Quoting Tero Kristo (2018-11-29 23:37:35)
> On 30/11/2018 02:26, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Andreas Kemnade (2018-11-10 12:31:12)
> >> On the gta04 with a dm3730 omap_hdq does not work properly when the
> >> device enters lower power states. Idling uart1 and 2 is enough
> >> to show up that problem, if there are no other things enabled.
> >> Further research reveals that hdq iclk must not be turned off during
> >> transfers, also according to the TRM. That fact is also correctly described
> >> in the flags but the code to handle that is incomplete.
> >>
> >> To handle multiple users of a single ick, autoidle is disabled
> >> when a user of that ick requires that (has the OCPIF_SWSUP_IDLE))
> >>
> >> Changes since v1:
> >> - uses spinlocks instead of mutexes
> >> - invert counter logic
> >> - check whether clock type is basic
> >>
> > 
> > I'm expecting someone like Tero or Tony to review this.
> > 
> 
> Rest of it looks fine to me, except for the discussion under the 
> CLK_IS_BASIC flag, which might trigger a bigger rework of the code.
> 

Is that a Reviewed-by tag?