linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] mfd: tps65219: Add driver for TI TPS65219 PMIC

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: <7hk042agn4.fsf@baylibre.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 09:00:47 -0800
From:   Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>
To:     jerome Neanne <jneanne@...libre.com>, Andrew Davis <afd@...com>,
        Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
Cc:     Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, lgirdwood@...il.com,
        broonie@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, kristo@...nel.org,
        dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, tony@...mide.com,
        vigneshr@...com, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, shawnguo@...nel.org,
        geert+renesas@...der.be, dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org,
        marcel.ziswiler@...adex.com, vkoul@...nel.org,
        biju.das.jz@...renesas.com, arnd@...db.de, jeff@...undy.com,
        narmstrong@...libre.com, msp@...libre.com, j-keerthy@...com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-omap@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] mfd: tps65219: Add driver for TI TPS65219 PMIC

jerome Neanne <jneanne@...libre.com> writes:

> On 09/11/2022 22:59, Andrew Davis wrote:
>> On 11/7/22 3:14 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> Nishanth Menon <nm@...com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 13:58-20221104, jerome Neanne wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you try an compile with W=1 please.
>>>>> This raise one warning on mfd:
>>>>> drivers/mfd/tps65219.c:28:12: warning: ‘tps65219_soft_shutdown’ 
>>>>> defined but
>>>>> not used [-Wunused-function]
>>>>>     28 | static int tps65219_soft_shutdown(struct tps65219 *tps)
>>>>>        |            ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>> soft_shutdown has been validated and is used in TI baseline even if not
>>>>> hooked in upstream version further to this review:
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220825150224.826258-5-msp@baylibre.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> It was a TI requirement to implement it...
>>>>> Let me know if you want me to remove this function or if we can keep 
>>>>> it like
>>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>> There are platforms without psci, correct? I think the comment was to
>>>> drop the force override with system-power-controller property,
>>>>
>>>> if (!pm_power_off) {
>>>>     tps65219_i2c_client = client;
>>>>     pm_power_off = &tps65219_pm_power_off;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Could still be valid for such platforms, no? I do see that the
>>>> capability that the PMIC has - which is software shutdown is a valid
>>>> feature that we support in many different PMIC drivers. Is'nt the job of
>>>> the driver to introduce the functionality in a manner that is
>>>> appropriate to the OS framework?
>>>
>>> Yeah, I think Nishanth is right here.
>>>
>>> We should probably keep the `if (!pm_power_off)` part so the PMIC will
>>> be used if PSCI is not, but it also allows an easy way to test/use the 
>>> PMIC
>>> shutdown functionality downstream if needed.
>>>
>> 
>> Then should be using the sys-off handler API[0] so it doesn't block PSCI
>> which is also switching over[1].
>> 
>> Andrew
>> 
>> [0] https://lwn.net/Articles/894511/
>> [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg1024127.html
> Can we go for upstream with v7 without tps65219_soft_shutdown. Then if 
> everyone agrees with Andrew proposal, I'll submit a separate patch which 
> adds implementation of tps65219_soft_shutdown support through sys-off 
> handler.
>
> So that we are not blocking upstream in case further 
> discussions/alignment are required.

Seems OK to me.  Nishanth?  Andrew?

But I think you'll need to at least submit a v8 without the unused
code/dead code that Lee pointed out.

Kevin