linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] mfd: palmas: Reset the POWERHOLD mux during power off

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]

Date:   Fri, 24 Mar 2017 17:06:03 +0530
From:   Keerthy <j-keerthy@...com>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
CC:     <tony@...mide.com>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        <nm@...com>, <t-kristo@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] mfd: palmas: Reset the POWERHOLD mux during power
 off



On Friday 24 March 2017 05:00 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, Keerthy wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday 22 November 2016 06:33 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Keerthy wrote:
>>>
>>>> POWERHOLD signal has higher priority  over the DEV_ON bit.
>>>> So power off will not happen if the POWERHOLD is held high.
>>>> Hence reset the MUX to GPIO_7 mode to release the POWERHOLD
>>>> and the DEV_ON bit to take effect to power off the PMIC.
>>>>
>>>> PMIC Power off happens in dire situations like thermal shutdown
>>>> so irrespective of the POWERHOLD setting go ahead and turn off
>>>> the powerhold.  Currently poweroff is broken on boards that have
>>>> powerhold enabled. This fixes poweroff on those boards.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@...com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>>
>>>>   * Changed pr_err to dev_err
>>>>   * removed redundant boolean variable override-powerhold
>>>>
>>>>  drivers/mfd/palmas.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> Applied, thanks.
>>
>> Lee Jones,
>>
>> For some strange reason this patch is missing!
>> The other patch in the series is applied through mfd tree but somehow
>> this particular patch is missed out.
>>
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9420631/ is applied.
>>
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9420655/ is not.
>>
>> I tried applying this very patch and it applies cleanly on the next
>> branch. Let me know if you want me to send this again on top of latest
>> next branch.
> 
> Sorry about this.
> 
> Reapplied and re-pushed.

Thanks Lee Jones.

> 
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/palmas.c b/drivers/mfd/palmas.c
>>>> index ee9e9ea..da90124 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/mfd/palmas.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/palmas.c
>>>> @@ -430,6 +430,20 @@ static void palmas_power_off(void)
>>>>  {
>>>>  	unsigned int addr;
>>>>  	int ret, slave;
>>>> +	struct device_node *np = palmas_dev->dev->of_node;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (of_property_read_bool(np, "ti,palmas-override-powerhold")) {
>>>> +		addr = PALMAS_BASE_TO_REG(PALMAS_PU_PD_OD_BASE,
>>>> +					  PALMAS_PRIMARY_SECONDARY_PAD2);
>>>> +		slave = PALMAS_BASE_TO_SLAVE(PALMAS_PU_PD_OD_BASE);
>>>> +
>>>> +		ret = regmap_update_bits(palmas_dev->regmap[slave], addr,
>>>> +				PALMAS_PRIMARY_SECONDARY_PAD2_GPIO_7_MASK, 0);
>>>> +		if (ret)
>>>> +			dev_err(palmas_dev->dev,
>>>> +				"Unable to write PRIMARY_SECONDARY_PAD2 %d\n",
>>>> +				ret);
>>>> +	}
>>>>  
>>>>  	slave = PALMAS_BASE_TO_SLAVE(PALMAS_PMU_CONTROL_BASE);
>>>>  	addr = PALMAS_BASE_TO_REG(PALMAS_PMU_CONTROL_BASE, PALMAS_DEV_CTRL);
>>>
>