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:   Wed, 25 Jan 2017 21:30:40 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <>
To:     Dmitry Torokhov <>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <>,
        Furquan Shaikh <>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <>,
        Liam Girdwood <>,
        Tony Lindgren <>, Len Brown <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <>,
        Hanjun Guo <>,
        Will Deacon <>,
        Rob Herring <>,
        Sathyanarayana Nujella <>,
        Heikki Krogerus <>,
        Adam Thomson <>,
        Linus Walleij <>,
        Alexandre Courbot <>,,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        Linux OMAP Mailing List <>,
        Aaron Durbin <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Implement generic regulator constraints parsing for
 ACPI and OF

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 01:17:14PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 08:39:07PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > That's *not* a sensible thing for drivers to assume regardless of the
> > presence or absence of explicitly controlled regulators, that just seems
> > like a plain old driver bug.  Even if there are regulators that doesn't
> > mean there isn't a suspend mode configuration that disables those
> > regulators.

> That means your platform description is incomplete, AKA a plain old
> device tree bug.

What makes you say that?  Like I say even with an explicitly described
regulator we might power it off during suspend (perhaps even through
explicit device tree configuration).

> > That's not an ACPI thing, unless the device thinks it's actively
> > providing a wakeup source then if the system suspends the driver should
> > not be surprised to have power pulled - that's pretty normal.  If the
> > driver is a wakeup source then it's a bit different.

> From the practical standpoint many drivers make this assumption because
> this shortens resume time for device. I.e. it makes difference whether
> we go through full controller reset, possibly reloading firmware, and
> applying desired configuration, versus taking the chip out of deep sleep
> mode.

Really?  They've been used on a limited set of systems and if they're
attempting to use the presence of a regulator to figure out if this is
going to happen they are just completely broken in this regard and need
to be fixed before anyone copies that code.  Even ignoring the suspend
mode configuration dummy regulators mean such a check would return true
in essentially all systems.

> So if we indeed saying that drivers should expect handling power loss
> even when devices are not on a hot-pluggable buses then we need a
> generic API for querying whether device lost it's state or not.

Yes.  Querying the suspend mode configuration would be one way to do it

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists