linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PM: domains: Prevent power off for parent unless child is in deepest state

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5e27fc63-5dd7-8da6-01f5-d7c7660874e3@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Feb 2022 00:49:12 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: domains: Prevent power off for parent unless child is
 in deepest state

14.02.2022 12:22, Ulf Hansson пишет:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 at 13:14, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> 07.02.2022 11:43, Ulf Hansson пишет:
>>>> In general, such changes usually are deferred from being upstreamed
>>>> until there is a real user, otherwise there is a risk of cluttering the
>>>> code with unused features. Do you have a time estimation in regards to
>>>> when STMicro may start to benefit from this change?
>>> The STMicro folkz are working on it right now, but I can't give you
>>> any estimates for their work.
>>>
>>> Moreover, I think the important point in this regard, is that the
>>> $subject patch doesn't really hurt anything else, so then what's the
>>> point of holding this back?
>>
>> If that work will never pan out, will you remove the unused code?
> 
> Sure, I will continue to monitor the situation, which is what I have
> been doing for many years by now.
> 
> In the past we have agreed to add new things to genpd, even if those
> didn't have in-tree users when the changes went in. The current
> dev_pm_genpd_set_next_wakeup() inteface, for example, is still lacking
> a user upstream. It's a balance, because I certainly agree with you,
> that we don't want to carry around dead code in the kernel - unless we
> have reasons to believe it's an intermediate step before there a user
> turning up.

I've seen enough of dead code while was doing a tree-wide changes, we
don't need more :)

Oh, well. Sounds like you're working closely with the STMicro people, so
should be fine.