linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: power: Introduce suspend states supported properties

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: <19ae9d20-46aa-25d7-87aa-ea4270f0162b@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Sep 2018 14:42:56 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, Keerthy <j-keerthy@...com>,
        mark.rutland@....com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, t-kristo@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: power: Introduce suspend states supported
 properties



On 12/09/18 14:32, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> [180912 11:41]:
>> On 12/09/18 12:19, Keerthy wrote:
>>> suspend to mem and suspend to disk are pretty generic states and i agree
>>> implementation is platform dependent so why not have properties that
>>> convey if they are supported?
>>>
>>
>> We already have power domains and idle states for that. If you need to
>> restrict few states on some platform for whatever reasons, just disable
>> those states. I don't see the need to add any more bindings for the same.
> 
> Oh do you mean the "domain-idle-states" property as mentioned in the
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt?
> 

Yes, exactly that.

> Yeah that should do and the DOMAIN_PWR_DN and DOMAIN_RET can be SoC
> specific and then the board can select which ones to use depending on
> how things are wired for GPIOs, memory, PMIC and so on.
>

All the idle-states are platform specific. DOMAIN_RET and DOMAIN_PWR_DN
are just examples used in the bindings.

> Hmm I don't see any users for this binding though?
> 

It was added specifically to deal with such SoC idles states or
hierarchical CPU power domains states, no users in upstream yet. But IMO
it fits what $subject is trying to address.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep