linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 2/4] amba: Don't unprepare the clocks if device driver wants IRQ safe 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 4 Nov 2014 21:18:34 +0100
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
	Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
	Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/4] amba: Don't unprepare the clocks if device driver
 wants IRQ safe runtime PM

On Tue 2014-11-04 13:52:48, 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()). In such case the AMBA
> bus driver should only disable/enable the clock in runtime suspend and
> resume callbacks.



>  /*
>   * Hooks to provide runtime PM of the pclk (bus clock).  It is safe to
>   * enable/disable the bus clock at runtime PM suspend/resume as this
> @@ -95,8 +102,14 @@ static int amba_pm_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
>  	struct amba_device *pcdev = to_amba_device(dev);
>  	int ret = pm_generic_runtime_suspend(dev);
>  
> -	if (ret == 0 && dev->driver)
> -		clk_disable_unprepare(pcdev->pclk);
> +	if (ret == 0 && dev->driver) {
> +		pcdev->irq_safe = get_pm_runtime_irq_safe(dev);
> +
> +		if (pcdev->irq_safe)
> +			clk_disable(pcdev->pclk);
> +		else
> +			clk_disable_unprepare(pcdev->pclk);
> +	}

So you can handle the case of !pcdev->irq_safe. What is the penalty
for always assuming !pcdev->irq_safe?
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/