linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 2/8] arm64: dts: qcom: add initial SM8650 dtsi

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]

Date:   Thu, 2 Nov 2023 14:32:30 +0100
From:   Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
To:     neil.armstrong@...aro.org, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/8] arm64: dts: qcom: add initial SM8650 dtsi



On 02/11/2023 11:54, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> On 25/10/2023 11:01, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/25/23 09:47, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>> Add initial DTSI for the Qualcomm SM8650 platform,
>>> only contains nodes which doesn't depend on interconnect.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>
>>> ---[...]
>>
>>> +            CLUSTER_SLEEP_1: cluster-sleep-1 {
>>> +                compatible = "domain-idle-state";
>>> +                arm,psci-suspend-param = <0x4100c344>;
>> I think this parameter signals the AOSS to attempt system
>> suspend and CLUSTER_SLEEP is a shallower, separate state.
> 
> OK, so downstream call this state "APSS_OFF" and the other state
> calling 0x41000044 "CLUSTER_PWR_DN"Well, the name APSS_OFF suggests that all clusters go offline so
that would be a bit more complex than a simple "cut power to this
cluster"


> On sm8[345]0 and qdu1000/sm4450 there's both states called 
> CLUSTER_SLEEP_0 and CLUSTER_SLEEP_1,
> and referenced into CLUSTER_PD cluster power domain.
> 
> I assume this is the same as SM8550, so what's the issue ?
It's just that we've been naming it in the most generic way possible
and that it could be more descriptive, especially given its
correlation with different things

Konrad