linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] watchdog: at91sam9: request the irq with IRQF_NO

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:	Mon, 09 Mar 2015 15:30:01 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Sylvain Rochet <gradator@...dator.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
	Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	"rtc-linux@...glegroups.com" <rtc-linux@...glegroups.com>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
	"linux-serial@...r.kernel.org" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org" <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] watchdog: at91sam9: request the irq with IRQF_NO_SUSPEND

On Monday, March 09, 2015 08:55:46 AM Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 08/03/2015 at 02:12:53 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote :
> > > > I think you misunderstood, that is exactly the expected behaviour. This
> > > > is hardware defined. Once the watchdog is started, nobody can stop it.
> > > > Trying to change the mode register will result in a reset of the
> > > > SoC.
> > > 
> > > Well, it boils down to "what is stronger". Desire to suspend the
> > > system, or desire to reboot the system.
> > > 
> > > It is "echo mem > state", not "echo reboot > state".
> > > 
> > > > It is documented in the datasheet and any user wanting another behaviour
> > > > is out of luck.
> > > 
> > > Actaully, your platform should just refuse to enter suspend-to-RAM
> > > when hw watchdog is enabled.
> > 
> > Quite likely, depending on how exactly the suspend is implemented.
> >
> 
> We've had absolutely zero complain on that. It is quite clear in the
> datasheet that failing to refresh the watchdog once started will lead to
> a reset and that it is impossible to stop.
> It is actually quite convenient to also ensure that you can actually
> wake up from suspend because that can obviously go wrong.

I gather then that the suspend implementation is such that touching the
watchdog periodically while suspended is not a problem.

Again, can you please tell me how suspend is implemented on at91?


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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/