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  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:	Mon, 20 Oct 2014 21:50:57 +0200
From:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>
To:	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
CC:	Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
	Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
	linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...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>,
	Chris Zhong <zyw@...k-chips.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ARM: EXYNOS: Call regulator core suspend prepare
 and finish functions

[adding Rafael Wysocki to cc as Suspend-to-RAM maintainer]

On 10/20/2014 07:36 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Javier,
> 
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
> <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk> wrote:
>>> It turns out that regulator_suspend_finish() actually returns an error
>>> code.  Could you print a warning if you see it?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I noticed this when looking at Chris patch for Rockchip but didn't re-spin
>> because I'm not sure anymore if this is the right solution. I mean, if is
>> correct to add the same calls on every platform or if the regulator suspend
>> prepare and finish functions should be called from the suspend core instead.
>>
>> For example calling regulator_suspend_prepare() from platform_suspend_prepare()
>> [0] will have the advantage of passing the correct suspend_state_t state instead
>> of hard-coding PM_SUSPEND_MEM and will make the regulator suspend states to work
>> on all platforms.
> 
> Yes.  If we can get this added to the core that would be better.
> 

Agreed, let's see what Rafael says about it.

> I guess I was just trying to follow the suggestion that was in the
> regulator code:
> http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/regulator/core.c#L3699
> that says "This will usually be called by machine suspend code prior
> to supending."
> 
> -Doug
> 

I see, but still I feel as if it may be a lot of duplication since most
platforms will likely want to call the regulator core suspend prepare
and finish functions. Maybe it can be added as a Kconfig option so each
platform can choose at the config level if they want those to be called?

Best regard,
Javier
--
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