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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:56:36 +0900 From: Alex Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com> To: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com> CC: Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@...il.com>, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>, Mark Zhang <markz@...dia.com>, Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>, Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, "linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>, "devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org" <devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>, "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCHv9 1/3] Runtime Interpreted Power Sequences Hi Tomi, On Tuesday 20 November 2012 22:48:18 Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > I guess there's a reason, but the above looks a bit inconsistent. For > gpio you define the gpio resource inside the step. For power and pwm the > resource is defined before the steps. Why wouldn't "pwm = <&pwm 2 > 5000000>;" work in step2? That's mostly a framework issue. Most frameworks do not export a function that allow to dereference a phandle - they expect resources to be declared right under the device node and accessed by name through foo_get(device, name). So using phandles in power sequences would require to export these additional functions and also opens the door to some inconsistencies - for instance, your PWM phandle could be referenced a second time in the sequence with a different period - how do you know that these are actually referring the same PWM device? > > +When a power sequence is run, its steps is executed one after the other > > until +one step fails or the end of the sequence is reached. > > The document doesn't give any hint of what the driver should do if > running the power sequence fails. Run the "opposite" power sequence? > Will that work for all resources? I'm mainly thinking of a case where > each enable of the resource should be matched by a disable, i.e. you > can't call disable if no enable was called. We discussed that issue already (around v5 I think) and the conclusion was that it should be up to the driver. When we simply enable/disable resources it is easy to revert, but in the future non-boolean properties will likely be introduced, and these cannot easily be reverted. Moreover some drivers might have more complex recovery needs. This deserves more discussion I think, as I'd like to have some "generic" recovery mechanism that covers most of the cases. Alex. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists