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:   Thu, 1 Sep 2016 14:50:56 -0700
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
        Ziyuan Xu <xzy.xu@...k-chips.com>,
        Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Xing Zheng <zhengxing@...k-chips.com>,
        "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Frank Wang <frank.wang@...k-chips.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Elaine Zhang <zhangqing@...k-chips.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        David Wu <david.wu@...k-chips.com>,
        Caesar Wang <wxt@...k-chips.com>,
        Jianqun Xu <jay.xu@...k-chips.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Shunqian Zheng <zhengsq@...k-chips.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: rockchip: add eMMC's power domain support
 for rk3399

Hi,

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:45 AM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> wrote:
> I was reading the discussion regarding this change and browsing the DT
> documentation around this... Can you guys explain what really goes on
> here, please.
>
> To me, it seems like you are managing one device's resources in one
> separate genpd. One genpd per device. Is that correct?
>
> Perhaps each device actually has its own PM domain and thus it makes
> sense to assign one genpd per device?

I'm not as familiar with genpd as I should be, so hopefully this makes sense.

...in hardware there is a "pd_emmc" that is the power domain for just
eMMC.  That will be referenced hooked up via device tree, like:

power-domains = <&power RK3399_PD_EMMC>;

I believe that means that power will automatically be removed whenever
the device is runtime suspended or suspended.

If w're not supporting "autosuspend" and nobody is tweaking anything
manually, then it's possible (I think) that runtime suspend happens at
exactly the same time as suspend.  ...but my point was that it was
cleaner to actually do it any restoring in the "runtime resume" hooks
to match what genpd does.  This matches what you say: use runtime PM.

...but it also sounds like it might not be terribly important to
restore these values since they're a bit silly to begin with.  If
that's true then I guess we don't need to do anything special here.


Did that all make sense (it's entirely possible it didn't since
somehow my brain still hasn't absorbed all runtime PM and genpd
concepts)

-Doug

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ