linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm/msm/dpu: ensure device suspend happens during PM sleep

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]

Date:   Tue, 24 Mar 2020 07:35:18 -0700
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Kalyan Thota <kalyan_t@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        freedreno <freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
        Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
        "Kristian H. Kristensen" <hoegsberg@...omium.org>,
        Jeykumar Sankaran <jsanka@...eaurora.org>,
        mkrishn@...eaurora.org, travitej@...eaurora.org,
        nganji@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/msm/dpu: ensure device suspend happens during PM sleep

Hi,

On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kalyan Thota <kalyan_t@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>
> "The PM core always increments the runtime usage counter
> before calling the ->suspend() callback and decrements it
> after calling the ->resume() callback"
>
> DPU and DSI are managed as runtime devices. When
> suspend is triggered, PM core adds a refcount on all the
> devices and calls device suspend, since usage count is
> already incremented, runtime suspend was not getting called
> and it kept the clocks on which resulted in target not
> entering into XO shutdown.
>
> Add changes to manage runtime devices during pm sleep.
>
> Changes in v1:
>  - Remove unnecessary checks in the function
>      _dpu_kms_disable_dpu (Rob Clark).

I'm wondering what happened with my feedback on v1, AKA:

https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAD=FV=VxzEV40g+ieuEN+7o=34+wM8MHO8o7T5zA1Yosx7SVWg@mail.gmail.com

Maybe you didn't see it?  ...or if you or Rob think I'm way off base
(always possible) then please tell me so.

Thanks!

-Doug