linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 04/11] dt: psci: Update DT bindings to support hierarchical PSCI states

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 12 Oct 2018 12:24:37 +0200
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc:     "Raju P.L.S.S.S.N" <rplsssn@...eaurora.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Lina Iyer <ilina@...eaurora.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 04/11] dt: psci: Update DT bindings to support
 hierarchical PSCI states

On 12 October 2018 at 12:13, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 11:43:11AM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 11 October 2018 at 18:41, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> > Yes, nearly there. Just thought good to add a note that the representation
>> > has no affinity towards any PSCI idle state mechanism(PC or OSI). So
>> > that it's never assumed or misunderstood.
>>
>> I understand your point. However, I think the following sentence still
>> makes sense (exist in the suggest change above).
>>
>> "In PSCI firmware v1.0, the OS-Initiated mode is introduced. In order
>> to use it, the hierarchical representation must be used."
>>
>> How about if I add: "For the default platform-coordinated mode, both
>> representations are viable options."
>>
> I would also add couple of things, how about this order:
>
> In PSCI firmware v1.0, the OS-Initiated mode is introduced. However the
> flattened vs hierarchical DT representation of power domains is orthogonal
> to OS-Initiated vs platform-coordinated PSCI CPU suspend modes and
> should be considered independent of each other.
>
> The hierarchical representation helps and makes it easy to implement
> OSI mode and OS implementations may choose to mandate it.
>
> For the default platform-coordinated mode, both representations are
> viable options.

This looks great! I am adding it to the next version, thanks!

Kind regards
Uffe