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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 21 Dec 2017 11:50:54 +0100
From:   Ulf Hansson <>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>
Cc:     Kishon Vijay Abraham I <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <>,
        Linux PM <>,
        Yoshihiro Shimoda <>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <>,
        Linux-Renesas <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] phy: core: Move runtime PM reference counting to
 the parent device

On 21 December 2017 at 02:39, Rafael J. Wysocki <> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Ulf Hansson <> wrote:
>> The runtime PM deployment in the phy core is deployed using the phy core
>> device, which is created by the phy core and assigned as a child device of
>> the phy provider device.
>> The behaviour around the runtime PM deployment cause some issues during
>> system suspend, in cases when the phy provider device is put into a low
>> power state via a call to the pm_runtime_force_suspend() helper, as is the
>> case for a Renesas SoC, which has its phy provider device attached to the
>> generic PM domain.
>> In more detail, the problem in this case is that pm_runtime_force_suspend()
>> expects the child device of the provider device, which is the phy core
>> device, to be runtime suspended, else a WARN splat will be printed
>> (correctly) when runtime PM gets re-enabled at system resume.
> So we are now trying to work around issues with
> pm_runtime_force_suspend().  Lovely. :-/

Yes, we have to, as pm_runtime_force_suspend() is widely deployed. Or
are you saying we should just ignore all issues related to it?

Of course, if we had something that could replace
pm_runtime_force_suspend(), that would be great, but there isn't.

>> In the current scenario, even if a call to phy_power_off() triggers it to
>> invoke pm_runtime_put() during system suspend, the phy core device doesn't
>> get runtime suspended, because this is prevented in the system suspend
>> phases by the PM core.
>> To solve this problem, let's move the runtime PM deployment from the phy
>> core device to the phy provider device, as this provides the similar
>> behaviour. Changing this makes it redundant to enable runtime PM for the
>> phy core device, so let's avoid doing that.
> I'm not really convinced that this approach is the best one to be honest.
> I'll have a deeper look at this in the next few days, stay tuned.

There is different ways to solve this, for sure. I picked this one,
because I think it's the most trivial thing to do, and it shouldn't
cause any other problems.

I think any other option would involve assigning ->suspend|resume()
callbacks to the phy core device, but that's fine too, if you prefer

Also, I have considered how to deal with wakeup paths for phys,
although I didn't want to post changes as a part of this series, but
maybe I should to give a more complete picture?

Kind regards

Powered by blists - more mailing lists