linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] PM: runtime: Apply pinctrl settings if defined

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: <CACRpkdZ9RHcHh4o5g62ywK0eQHpLZuGUF0Ud6jogk9Sfqe4krA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Nov 2023 14:01:48 +0100
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Joy Chakraborty <joychakr@...gle.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, manugautam@...gle.com,
        aniketmaurya@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] PM: runtime: Apply pinctrl settings if defined

On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 11:21 AM Joy Chakraborty <joychakr@...gle.com> wrote:

> Apply pinctrl state from  runtime framework device state transtion.
>
> Pinctrl states if defined in DT are bookmarked in device structures
> but they need to be explicitly applied from device driver callbacks
> which is boiler plate code and also not present in many drivers.
>
> If there is a specific order of setting pinctrl state with other driver
> actions then the device driver can choose to do it from its pm callbacks,
> in such a case this call will be a no-op from the pinctrl core framework
> since the desired pinctrl state would already be set.
>
> We could also add a Kconfig knob to enable/disable this, but I do not
> see a need to.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joy Chakraborty <joychakr@...gle.com>

It has a certain beauty to it does it not!

The reason it wasn't done like this from the start was, if I recall correctly,
that in some cases a device needs to do the pin control state switching
in a special sequence with other operations, that can not be reordered,
i.e.:

1. The pin control state change is not context-free.

2. The order of events, i.e. context, does not necessarily match the
     order that Linux subsystems happen to do things.

When looking through the kernel tree I don't see that people use
the sleep state and idle state much, so we could very well go
with this, and then expect people that need special-casing to name
their states differently.

What do people thing about that?

Yours,
Linus Walleij