linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/9] ARM: tegra: Export tegra_powergate_power

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:	Tue, 8 Jul 2014 17:11:35 +0300
From:	Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>
To:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
CC:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@...dia.com>,
	"tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-ide@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] ARM: tegra: Export tegra_powergate_power_on

> > 
> > Yes, but the problem is that you also need clocks and reset of other modules
> > in the same domain to safely control the domain's status. Eg: the ISPs, VI and
> > CSI share a domain. VI and CSI are useable without ISP and the ISP lacks
> > public documentation. So it's not unlikely a VI and CSI driver will upstreamed
> > someday which means we would need to control the domain and therefore would
> > need to tell that driver about the ISPs clocks and resets even though the
> > driver doesn't know anything about the ISP hw otherwise.
> 
> Can't we make powergates reference counted so that they don't get
> disabled as long as there are any users? Looking for example at the

We could, but then why not switch to the powerdomain code and make powering
off a domain a NOP until we sorted out the context save/restore or fixed
the framework to allow for suspend without turning off the domains?

> display controller driver, modules don't seem to care overly much about
> the powergate's state except that it needs to be turned on before they
> touch some of the registers.
> 
> From a bit of experimentation it also seems like the sequence encoded
> within tegra_powergate_sequence_power_up() isn't at all necessary. I
> couldn't find an authoritative reference for that either, so I'm tempted
> to conclude that it was simply cargo-culted from the dark-ages.
> 
> So I'm thinking that if we ever move to use power domains for this, we
> may be able to just drop any extra handling (well, we'd need to keep it
> for backwards-compatibility... *sigh*) and let drivers handle the clock
> and reset resources.
> 
> On the other hand, given that we already need to keep the existing code
> for backwards-compatibility, I'm not sure there's a real advantage in
> turning them into power domains, since we'd be adding extra code without
> an clear gains (especially since it seems like we'd need even more code
> to properly handle suspend/resume in drivers that need powergates).
> 

Unless we fix the framework to require context save/restore for suspend.
There is a good reason to do that. context save/restore requires energy
as well, so it's not a given that turning off domains in system suspend
will save power.

Cheers,

Peter.
--
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/