linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: OMAP2+ hwmod: Allow modules to disable HW

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]

Message-ID: <20170316152405.GN20572@atomide.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Mar 2017 08:24:06 -0700
From:   Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:     Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com>
Cc:     paul@...an.com, bcousson@...libre.com, t-kristo@...com,
        nsekhar@...com, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: OMAP2+ hwmod: Allow modules to disable HW_AUTO

* Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com> [170316 01:06]:
> On 16/03/17 09:59, Roger Quadros wrote:
> > Tony,
> > 
> > On 14/03/17 17:48, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> >> * Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com> [170313 04:55]:
> >>
> >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c
> >>> @@ -2149,7 +2149,7 @@ static int _idle(struct omap_hwmod *oh)
> >>>  		_idle_sysc(oh);
> >>>  	_del_initiator_dep(oh, mpu_oh);
> >>>  
> >>> -	if (oh->clkdm)
> >>> +	if (oh->clkdm && !(oh->flags & HWMOD_CLKDM_NOAUTO))
> >>>  		clkdm_deny_idle(oh->clkdm);
> >>>  
> >>>  	if (oh->flags & HWMOD_BLOCK_WFI)
> >>
> >> Is this change to _idle() really needed? It seems that the
> >> clkdm_deny_idle() there is paired with the clkdm_allow_idle()
> >> later on in the same function?
> >>
> > 
> > You are right. This change to _idle() is unnecessary. I'll send an update.
> > 
> 
> Now I remember why I put it there.
> 
> When HWMOD_CLKDM_NOAUTO flag is set, _enable() does not
> call clkdm_allow_idle() so the call to clkdm_deny_idle() in _idle() would
> be redundant.
> 
> I think we should keep the patch as it is. What do you say?

OK. Maybe add a comment there about that?

Regards,

Tony