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, 22 Dec 2014 11:00:16 -0700
From:	Stephen Warren <>
To:	Dmitry Osipenko <>,
	Thierry Reding <>,
	Alexandre Courbot <>,
	Joseph Lo <>
CC:, Russell King <>,
	Haojian Zhuang <>,
	Sekhar Nori <>,
	Stefano Stabellini <>,
	Christoffer Dall <>,
	Shawn Guo <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: tegra: Use PMC scratch register 40 for tegra_resume()
 location store

On 12/22/2014 10:27 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 22.12.2014 19:17, Stephen Warren пишет:
>> On 12/21/2014 03:52 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>> Commit 7232398abc6a ("ARM: tegra: Convert PMC to a driver") changed
>>> tegra_resume()
>>> location storing from late to early and as result broke suspend on tegra20.
>>> PMC scratch register 41 was used by tegra lp1 suspend core code for storing
>>> physical memory address of common resume function and in the same time used by
>>> tegra20 cpuidle driver for storing cpu1 "resettable" status, so it implied
>>> strict order of scratch register use. Fix it by using scratch 40 instead of 41
>>> for tegra_resume() location store.
>> You likely can't simply change the PMC scratch register usage arbitrarily;
>> specific registers are designated for specific purposes, and code outside the
>> Linux kernel (bootloaders, LP0 resume code, secure monitors, etc.) may depend on
>> those specific values being in those registers. Without significant research,
>> I'd suggest not changing the PMC scratch register usage.
> Sure, that's why I asked to verify if scratch register 40 is in use in the
> comment after commit message.

Sorry, I didn't notice that.

> I've checked that u-boot doesn't use it (since
> upstream kernel doesn't care about any other bootloader), but no idea about
> secure monitor. It's definitely safer to avoid changing scratch regs usage, I
> thought that proposed solution would be best from the pure code point of view.
> So, I'm considering your answer as a rejection of the patch (please, let me know
> if I'm wrong) and will prepare another one. Btw, it would be nice to have
> scratch registers usage publicly documented somewhere (on "Tegra Public
> Application Notes" webpage for example), if it's possible, of course.

At this stage in Tegra20 development, I think it'd be best to avoid 
changing any scratch register usage if at all possible.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists