linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm/tidss: Power up attached PM domains on probe

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: <04a6eefa-235c-c973-8c74-eb8a8982abf4@ti.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Oct 2023 13:07:21 +0530
From:   Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@...com>
To:     Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
CC:     <jyri.sarha@....fi>, <tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com>,
        <airlied@...il.com>, <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
        <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <praneeth@...com>, <nm@...com>, <vigneshr@...com>,
        <a-bhatia1@...com>, <j-luthra@...com>, <r-ravikumar@...com>,
        <j-choudhary@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/tidss: Power up attached PM domains on probe

Hi Maxime,

On 12/10/23 18:10, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 05:10:06PM +0530, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
>> On 09/10/23 13:20, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
>>> Some SoC's such as AM62P have dedicated power domains
>>> for OLDI which need to be powered on separetely along
>>> with display controller.
>>>
>>> So during driver probe, power up all attached PM domains
>>> enumerated in devicetree node for DSS.
>>>
>>> This also prepares base to add display support for AM62P.
>>>
>>
>> NAK, for this patch, as discussed with team there are already plans
>> to have separate OLDI bridge driver which should eventually handle
>> the additional power domains.
> 
> Just for the record in case your current plan doesn't work out and we
> need to revisit this patch: my point was that it's something that
> deviates by a margin from what drivers are usually expected to do, so we
> should document why that deviation is there.
> 

Sure, thanks for suggesting, I agree that if going with this logic, we should
definitely put a comment in driver regarding same.

> The patch itself looks reasonable to me otherwise.

Yes, it's just that we are planning a separate driver for OLDI. We will see if
we need similar logic in that driver too.

Regards
Devarsh

> 
> Maxime