linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] Introduce SCMI System Power Control 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: <20220701134920.3elmh4bww3s63trr@bogus>
Date:   Fri, 1 Jul 2022 14:49:20 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Introduce SCMI System Power Control driver

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 01:47:37PM +0100, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This series is a respin of an old series[0] parked for a while waiting for
> a required SCMI specification change to be published.
> 
> The series, building on top of the SCMI System Power Protocol, adds a new 
> SCMI driver which, registering for SystemPower notifications, takes care to
> satisfy SCMI plaform system-transitions graceful requests like shutdown or
> reboot involving userspace interactions as needed.
> 
> Interaction with userspace boils down to the same orderly_ Kernel methods
> used by ACPI to handle similar shutdown requests.
> 
> The latest SCMI v3.1 specification [1], which adds a new timeout field to
> the graceful notifications payload, let the platform advertise for how long
> it will possibly wait for the requested system state transition to happen
> before forcibly enforcing it.
> 
> As a part of the series, patch 2/3 enforces, at the SCMI core level, the
> creation of one single SCMI SystemPower device, to avoid promoting the
> design of systems in which multiple SCMI platforms can advertise the
> concurrent support of SystemPower protocol: when multiple SCMI platform
> are defined, only one of them should be in charge of SystemPower comms
> with the OSPM, so only one such SystemPower device across all platforms
> is allowed to be created.
> 

Other than the comment in 2/5, I am happy with the other changes.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep