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, 22 Oct 2014 17:28:36 +0200 From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> Cc: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>, Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...il.com>, ssantosh@...nel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>, "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: keystone: pm: switch to use generic pm domains On 22 October 2014 17:09, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote: > Hi Ulf, > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> wrote: >>>>> +void keystone_pm_domain_attach_dev(struct device *dev) >>>>> { >>>>> + struct clk *clk; >>>>> int ret; >>>>> + int i = 0; >>>>> >>>>> dev_dbg(dev, "%s\n", __func__); >>>>> >>>>> - ret = pm_generic_runtime_suspend(dev); >>>>> - if (ret) >>>>> - return ret; >>>>> - >>>>> - ret = pm_clk_suspend(dev); >>>>> + ret = pm_clk_create(dev); >>>>> if (ret) { >>>>> - pm_generic_runtime_resume(dev); >>>>> - return ret; >>>>> + dev_err(dev, "pm_clk_create failed %d\n", ret); >>>>> + return; >>>>> + }; >>>>> + >>>>> + while ((clk = of_clk_get(dev->of_node, i++)) && !IS_ERR(clk)) { >>>>> + ret = pm_clk_add_clk(dev, clk); >>>>> + if (ret) { >>>>> + dev_err(dev, "pm_clk_add_clk failed %d\n", ret); >>>>> + goto clk_err; >>>>> + }; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> - return 0; >>>>> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME)) { >>>> Can we not okkup two seperate callbacks instead of above check ? >>>> I don't like this CONFIG check here. Its slightly better version of >>>> ifdef in middle of the code. >>> >>> I've found more-less similar comment on patch >>> "Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] power-domain: add power domain drivers for Rockchip platform" >>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/17/257 >>> >>> So, Would you like me to create patch which will enable clocks in pm_clk_add/_clk() >>> in case !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME) >> >> I am wondering whether we actually should/could do this, no matter of >> CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME. >> >> Typically, for configurations that uses CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME, the PM >> clocks through pm_clk_suspend(), will be gated once the device becomes >> runtime PM suspended. Right? > > Doing it unconditionally means we'll have lots of unneeded clocks running > for a short while. > > Are you trying to repeat power-up-all-PM-domains-during-boot for > clocks, too? ;-) This is related, but there are a difference. :-) As long as the pm_clk_add() is being invoked from the ->attach_dev() callback, we are in the probe path. Certainly we would like to have clocks enabled while probing, don't you think? If we wouldn't enable the clocks for CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME, when will those be enabled? Kind regards Uffe -- 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