linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 2/4] ACPI / LPSS: custom power domain for LPSS

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:	Fri, 23 May 2014 15:30:53 +0300
From:	Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
	Jin Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>,
	Li Aubrey <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/4] ACPI / LPSS: custom power domain for LPSS

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 01:28:16AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 01:52:58 PM Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 01:01:31PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 01:05:11 PM Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:33:09PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > First, is the 10 ms sleep really necessary?  I'd expect the AML to take care of
> > > > > such delays (this is not a PCI device formally).
> > > > 
> > > > Unfortunately that is not the case. There is nothing in the AML for
> > > > this. Mika, correct me if I'm wrong.
> > > > 
> > > > > And because this is not a PCI device formally, why is the comment talking about
> > > > > the PCI spec?  Why is PCI relevant in any way here?
> > > > 
> > > > Under the hood the devices are still PCI devices, even if they
> > > > formally aren't. Maybe I should point that out in the comment..
> > > > 
> > > > We put the sleep there because without it there was no guarantee if
> > > > the device was properly resumed by the time the drivers resume hooks
> > > > were called. The symptom in case of a failure was simply that the
> > > > registers could not be written, which leads into timeouts at least in
> > > > case of the I2C and UART and making them unusable until the next
> > > > suspend followed by resume.
> > > 
> > > OK, so the msleep() is functionally necessary.  Instead of talking about the
> > > PCI in the comment, which will make a casual reader think "What the heck?",
> > > please say something like "the delay is necessary for the subsequent register
> > > writes to succeed on <example system>".
> > 
> > OK.
> 
> So I have one more concern.  Namely, async suspend is not enabled for the LPSS
> devices, so the delays will accumulate for them and that may become a big deal
> at one point.
> 
> This may be addressed either (1) by enabling async suspend for them or, which would
> be more complicated, by doing the msleep() once for the whole LPSS in .resume_early()
> and restoring the register values in .resume() without delaying.
> 
> For (1) I have the following untested patch (on top of my bleeding-edge branch, but
> it should apply to the mainline too if I haven't overlooked anything).  Can you
> please try it on boxes with LPSS and see if it doesn't break suspend/resume on them?

Done, and there were no problems. I tested it with HSW, BYT and also BDW.

Thanks,

-- 
heikki
--
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/