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 02:39:19 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>
To:     Ulf Hansson <>
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 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. :-/

> 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.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists