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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1466b97e-2cbd-9469-6646-fee85a7efa58@nvidia.com> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 10:49:38 +0000 From: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com> To: Sameer Pujar <spujar@...dia.com>, <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, <vkoul@...nel.org> CC: <treding@...dia.com>, <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] dmaengine: tegra210-adma: update system sleep callbacks On 13/03/2019 10:40, Sameer Pujar wrote: > > On 3/13/2019 3:58 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: >> On 13/03/2019 05:43, Sameer Pujar wrote: >>> If the driver is active till late suspend, where runtime PM cannot run, >>> force suspend is essential in such case to put the device in low power >>> state. Thus pm_runtime_force_suspend and pm_runtime_force_resume are >>> used as system sleep callbacks during system wide PM transitions. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Sameer Pujar <spujar@...dia.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/dma/tegra210-adma.c | 10 ++-------- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/dma/tegra210-adma.c b/drivers/dma/tegra210-adma.c >>> index 650cd9c..be29171 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/dma/tegra210-adma.c >>> +++ b/drivers/dma/tegra210-adma.c >>> @@ -796,17 +796,11 @@ static int tegra_adma_remove(struct >>> platform_device *pdev) >>> return 0; >>> } >>> -#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP >>> -static int tegra_adma_pm_suspend(struct device *dev) >>> -{ >>> - return pm_runtime_suspended(dev) == false; >>> -} >>> -#endif >>> - >>> static const struct dev_pm_ops tegra_adma_dev_pm_ops = { >>> SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(tegra_adma_runtime_suspend, >>> tegra_adma_runtime_resume, NULL) >>> - SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(tegra_adma_pm_suspend, NULL) >>> + SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(pm_runtime_force_suspend, >>> + pm_runtime_force_resume) >>> }; >> Looking at our downstream kernel we use LATE_SYSTEM_SLEEP for these. Any >> reason why you changed this? > I think, I just wanted to replace function calls for system sleep here > and probably did > not see exactly what we have in downstream kernel at that point. Looking > at the commit > log in downstream, it might qualify for separate patch. > Let me know if you think, its better to add here. I see no reason to change this from what we have been using and testing downstream. I don't think that this warrants yet another patch for this. Furthermore, the changelog references 'late' so it does not seem to align with the change itself. Cheers Jon -- nvpublic
Powered by blists - more mailing lists