linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] power: reset: at91-poweroff: move shdwc related data to one structure

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: <20181106210933.GU24212@piout.net>
Date:   Tue, 6 Nov 2018 22:09:33 +0100
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To:     Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com
Cc:     sre@...nel.org, Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] power: reset: at91-poweroff: move shdwc related data
 to one structure

Hi Claudiu,

On 05/11/2018 11:14:26+0000, Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com wrote:
>  static int __init at91_poweroff_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> @@ -154,16 +160,22 @@ static int __init at91_poweroff_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	u32 ddr_type;
>  	int ret;
>  
> +	at91_shdwc = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*at91_shdwc), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!at91_shdwc)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +

Is there any real benefit that will offset the time lost for that
allocation at boot time?

I understand you are then testing at91_shdwc to know whether the driver
already probed once. But, the driver will never probe twice as there is
only one shutdown controller on the SoC and anyway, If it was to probe
twice, it will still work as expected.


-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com