linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 4/5] remoteproc: ingenic: Added remoteproc driver

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: <20200621193022.GA149351@builder.lan>
Date:   Sun, 21 Jun 2020 12:30:22 -0700
From:   Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To:     Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
Cc:     Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>,
        Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...com>, od@...c.me,
        linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 4/5] remoteproc: ingenic: Added remoteproc driver

On Fri 12 Jun 04:47 PDT 2020, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> Le jeu. 11 juin 2020 à 19:21, Suman Anna <s-anna@...com> a écrit :
> > On 6/11/20 5:21 PM, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> > > Le jeu. 11 juin 2020 à 16:47, Suman Anna <s-anna@...com> a écrit :
> > > > On 5/15/20 5:43 AM, Paul Cercueil wrote:
[..]
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ingenic_rproc.c
> > > > > b/drivers/remoteproc/ingenic_rproc.c
[..]
> > > > > +    /* The clocks must be enabled for the firmware to be
> > > > > loaded in TCSM */
> > > > > +    ret = clk_bulk_prepare_enable(ARRAY_SIZE(vpu->clks),
> > > > > vpu->clks);
> > > > > +    if (ret) {
> > > > > +        dev_err(dev, "Unable to start clocks\n");
> > > > > +        return ret;
> > > > > +    }
> > > > 
> > > > You are enabling the clocks directly here and also trying to
> > > > manage them through pm_runtime callbacks again.
> > > 
> > > Yes. The clocks need to be enabled in the probe.
> > 
> > For the preferred non CONFIG_PM case now and lack of
> > prepare/unprepare().
> 
> I want to make it clear that I'm not against having .prepare/.unprepare, but
> I want to see what maintainers have to say.
> 

I think it's perfectly reasonable to enable all the resources here and
then if CONFIG_PM isn't set you just leave them enabled throughout.

Regards,
Bjorn