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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 11:41:15 +0000 From: Srinivas Neeli <sneeli@...inx.com> To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> CC: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>, Michal Simek <michals@...inx.com>, Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhraj@...inx.com>, Srinivas Goud <sgoud@...inx.com>, Robert Hancock <hancock@...systems.ca>, William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>, Syed Nayyar Waris <syednwaris@...il.com>, "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, git <git@...inx.com> Subject: RE: [PATCH V4 4/5] gpio: gpio-xilinx: Add support for suspend and resume Hi Linus, > -----Original Message----- > From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> > Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 3:17 PM > To: Srinivas Neeli <sneeli@...inx.com> > Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>; Michal Simek > <michals@...inx.com>; Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhraj@...inx.com>; Srinivas > Goud <sgoud@...inx.com>; Robert Hancock <hancock@...systems.ca>; > William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>; Syed Nayyar Waris > <syednwaris@...il.com>; open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM <linux- > gpio@...r.kernel.org>; Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>; > linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; git <git@...inx.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 4/5] gpio: gpio-xilinx: Add support for suspend and > resume > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 1:27 PM Srinivas Neeli <srinivas.neeli@...inx.com> > wrote: > > > Add support for suspend and resume, pm runtime suspend and resume. > > Added free and request calls. > > > > Signed-off-by: Srinivas Neeli <srinivas.neeli@...inx.com> > (...) > > > +static int xgpio_request(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset) > > +{ > > + int ret; > > + > > + ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->parent); > > + /* > > + * If the device is already active pm_runtime_get() will return 1 on > > + * success, but gpio_request still needs to return 0. > > + */ > > + return ret < 0 ? ret : 0; > > +} > > That's clever. I think more GPIO drivers should be doing it like this, today I > think most just ignore the return code. > > > +static int __maybe_unused xgpio_suspend(struct device *dev) static > > +int __maybe_unused xgpio_resume(struct device *dev) > > Those look good. > > > > /** > > * xgpio_remove - Remove method for the GPIO device. > > * @pdev: pointer to the platform device @@ -289,7 +323,10 @@ static > > int xgpio_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) { > > struct xgpio_instance *gpio = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); > > > > - clk_disable_unprepare(gpio->clk); > > + if (!pm_runtime_suspended(&pdev->dev)) > > + clk_disable_unprepare(gpio->clk); > > + > > + pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev); > > This looks complex and racy. What if the device is resumed after you > executed the first part of the statement. Could you please explain more on this. What is the need to call pm_runtime_get_sync(); in remove API ? > > The normal sequence is: > > pm_runtime_get_sync(dev); > pm_runtime_put_noidle(dev); > pm_runtime_disable(dev); > > This will make sure the clock is enabled and pm runtime is disabled. > After this you can unconditionally call clk_disable_unprepare(gpio->clk); > > It is what you are doing on the errorpath of probe(). > > Yours, > Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists