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  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, 29 Nov 2017 09:37:26 -0800
From:   Florian Fainelli <>
To:     Tony Lindgren <>,
        Linus Walleij <>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <>,, Rob Herring <>,
        Mark Rutland <>,
        open list <>,
        Charles Keepax <>,
        Charles Keepax <>,
        Stephen Warren <>,
        Andy Shevchenko <>,
        Al Cooper <>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] pinctrl: Allow indicating loss of pin states
 during low-power

On 11/29/2017 09:02 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Linus Walleij <> [171129 13:03]:
>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 12:15 AM, Florian Fainelli <> wrote:
>>> Some platforms (e.g: Broadcom STB: BMIPS_GENERIC/ARCH_BRCMSTB) will lose
>>> their register contents when entering their lower power state. In such a
>>> case, the pinctrl-single driver that is used will not be able to restore
>>> the power states without telling the core about it and having
>>> pinctrl_select_state() check for that.
>>> This patch adds a new optional boolean property that Device Tree can
>>> define in order to obtain exactly that and having the core pinctrl code
>>> take that into account.
>>> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <>
>> Florian, I'm really sorry for losing track of this patch set, it's
>> important stuff and I see why systems are dependent on something
>> like this.
>> Tony: can you look at this from a pinctrl-single point of view?
>> This is the intended consumer: pinctrl-single users that lose the
>> hardware state over suspend/resume.
>> How do you see this working with other pinctrl-single users?
> Hmm well typically a device driver that loses it's context just does
> save and restore of the registers in runtime PM suspend/resume
> as needed. In this case it would mean duplicating the state for
> potentially for hundreds of registers.. So using the existing
> state in the pinctrl subsystem totally makes sense for the pins.
> Florian do you have other reasons why this should be done in the
> pinctrl framework instead of the driver? Might be worth describing
> the reasoning in the patch descriptions :)

The pinctrl provider driver that I am using is pinctrl-single, which has
proper suspend/resume callbacks but those are not causing any HW
programming to happen because of the (p->state == state) check, hence
this patch series.

> So as long as the pinctrl framework state is used to restore the
> state by the pinctrl driver instead of the pinctrl consumer drivers,
> I don't have issues with this patchset. So probably just improving
> the patch messages a bit should do it.
> FYI, on omaps, the PRCM hardware saves and restores the pinctrl
> state so this has not been so far an issue.
> Regards,
> Tony


Powered by blists - more mailing lists