linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] amba: Allow AMBA drivers to use their own runtime PM

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 15 Sep 2014 09:07:43 +0200
From:	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
	Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
	Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] amba: Allow AMBA drivers to use their own
 runtime PM

On pią, 2014-09-12 at 16:13 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 04:56:18PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > The AMBA bus driver defines runtime Power Management functions which
> > disable and unprepare AMBA bus clock. This is problematic for runtime PM
> > because unpreparing a clock might sleep so it is not interrupt safe.
> > 
> > However some drivers may want to implement runtime PM functions in
> > interrupt-safe way (see pm_runtime_irq_safe()). If such driver
> > implements its own runtime PM functions then assume it will handle the
> > runtime PM completely and it will replace our clock handling.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
> 
> Actually, I'd rather just revert 5303c0f46c8708fff4148ebcc491f78710356952
> which is clearly the wrong thing to do when we have non-IRQ safe runtime
> PM.
> 
> What we /could/ do instead is to check whether irq_safe is set after
> probe, record that, and then select whether to use the prepare/unprepare
> methods based on that.  (Drivers should never dynamically change this.)

I'll try this approach.

Thank you for feedback,
Krzysztof

--
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/