linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dts: rockchip: correct regulator PM properties

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150827205605.GA42154@google.com>
Date:	Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:56:05 -0700
From:	Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
To:	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
Cc:	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
	"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexandru M Stan <amstan@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dts: rockchip: correct regulator PM properties

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:51:22PM +0200, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 27. August 2015, 12:30:51 schrieb Doug Anderson:
> > If I understand correctly, the distinction between "standby" and "mem"
> > is not too clearly defined, so if we wanted to use it for this it
> > wouldn't be terrible?

I never understood many clear definitions here either, personally.

> From reading Documentation/power/states.txt it looks like the boot-cpu is 
> supposed to retain power in the suspend state. Although we also do not lose 
> "operating state" in our suspend I guess?
> 
> So using the shallow suspend as standby sounds interesting, for the time when 
> the deep suspend works too. If there is only one suspend state it 
> automatically becomes the "mem"-state it seems.

It's not really "automatic", it's a product of this line:

static const struct platform_suspend_ops rk3288_suspend_ops = {
        .enter   = rk3288_suspend_enter,
        .valid   = suspend_valid_only_mem,  <--- here
        .prepare = rk3288_suspend_prepare,
        .finish  = rk3288_suspend_finish,
};

and the fact that we don't check the 'state' argument in
.enter/.prepare/.finish.

But still, I'm not sure it's productive to rename shallow until we support
deep.

Regards,
Brian
--
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/