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: <163366509609.2041162.16407625879723979586@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2021 20:51:36 -0700 From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org> To: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>, alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com, ludovic.desroches@...rochip.com, mturquette@...libre.com, nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com Cc: linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/17] clk: at91: pmc: execute suspend/resume only for backup mode Quoting Claudiu Beznea (2021-09-23 06:20:31) > Before going to backup mode architecture specific PM code sets the first > word in securam (file arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c, function at91_pm_begin()). > Thus take this into account when suspending/resuming clocks. This will > avoid executing unnecessary instructions when suspending to non backup > modes. Also this commit changed the postcore_initcall() with > subsys_initcall() to be able to execute of_find_compatible_node() since > this was not available at the moment of postcore_initcall(). This should > not alter the tcb_clksrc since the changes are related to clocks > suspend/resume procedure that will be executed at the user space request, > thus long ago after subsys_initcall(). Is the comment still relevant though? > > Signed-off-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com> > --- > diff --git a/drivers/clk/at91/pmc.c b/drivers/clk/at91/pmc.c > index b2806946a77a..58e9c088cb22 100644 > --- a/drivers/clk/at91/pmc.c > +++ b/drivers/clk/at91/pmc.c > @@ -110,13 +112,35 @@ struct pmc_data *pmc_data_allocate(unsigned int ncore, unsigned int nsystem, > } > > #ifdef CONFIG_PM > + > +/* Address in SECURAM that say if we suspend to backup mode. */ > +static void __iomem *at91_pmc_backup_suspend; > + > static int at91_pmc_suspend(void) > { > + unsigned int backup; > + > + if (!at91_pmc_backup_suspend) > + return 0; > + > + backup = *(unsigned int *)at91_pmc_backup_suspend; This will fail sparse. Why are we reading iomem without using iomem reading wrapper? > + if (!backup)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists