linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] regulator: pfuze100-regulator: provide pm_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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20170531135942.20a72fe106667791e874fb20@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 31 May 2017 13:59:42 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     linux@...pel-privat.de, kernel@...gutronix.de,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] regulator: pfuze100-regulator: provide
 pm_power_off_prepare handler

On Wed, 31 May 2017 08:14:56 +0200 Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de> wrote:

> On some boards the SoC can use one pin "PMIC_STBY_REQ" to notify th PMIC
> about state changes. In this case internal state of PMIC must be
> preconfigured for upcomming state change.
> It works fine with the current regulator framework, except with the
> power-off case.
> 
> This patch is providing an optional pm_power_off_prepare handler
> which will configure the PMIC_StandBy state to disable all power lines.
> 
> In my power consumption test on RIoTBoard, I got the following results:
> poweroff without this patch:	320 mA
> poweroff with this patch:	2   mA
> suspend to ram:			40  mA
> 
> ...
>
> +static int pfuze_poweroff_pre_init(struct pfuze_chip *pfuze_chip)
> +{
> +	if (pfuze_chip->chip_id != PFUZE100) {
> +		dev_warn(pfuze_chip->dev, "Requested pm_power_off_prepare handler for not supoorted chip\n");
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (pm_power_off_prepare) {
> +		dev_warn(pfuze_chip->dev, "pm_power_off_prepare is already registred.\n");
> +		return -EBUSY;
> +	}
> +
> +	syspm_pfuze_chip = pfuze_chip;
> +	pm_power_off_prepare = pfuze_poweroff_pre;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +

Ah, there it is.

This looks a bit dodgy.  What happens after someone does rmmod on this
driver?

(typo in comment: "supoorted")

(I wish we could get "poweroff" and "power_off" consistent)