linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] pm loss development

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]

Message-Id: <201105180107.58078.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Wed, 18 May 2011 01:07:57 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	markgross@...gnar.org
Cc:	Raffaele Recalcati <lamiaposta71@...il.com>,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	davinci-linux-open-source@...ux.davincidsp.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] pm loss development

On Saturday, May 14, 2011, mark gross wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 06:54:57PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, May 13, 2011, Raffaele Recalcati wrote:
> > > Hi Rafael,
> > > 
> > > 2011/5/12 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>:
> > > > On Thursday, May 12, 2011, Raffaele Recalcati wrote:
> > > >> What happen normally in runtime pm implementation is that every devices
> > > >> are switched off and are enabled only when needed.
> > > >> In our case instead we have a completely functional embedded system and,
> > > >> when an asyncrhonous event appear, we have only some tens milliseconds
> > > >> before the actual power failure takes place.
> > > >> This patchset add a support in order to switch off not vital part of the system,
> > > >> in order to allow the board to survive longer.
> > > >> This allow the possibility to save important data.
> > > >
> > > > OK, so first, who decides what parts of the system are vital and what aren't?
> > > 
> > > Take a quick look at Documentation/power/loss.txt  paragrpah "2.4
> > > Power loss policies".
> > > You can decide what can be powered off.
> > 
> > I read the patches.  My question was about the general idea of who should
> > be responsible of making these decisions.
> 
> I would expect the system integrator would based on the application the
> device is getting deployed into.
> 
> A generic opportunistic policy for peripherals that are stateless and can
> be trivially power gated off/on from an ISR could be a default but, for
> peripherals that need to do some processing (like waiting on an eMMC DMA
> to complete) can take time to power down into a safe state.

What do you mean by safe state?

Rafael
--
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/