linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 07/15] net: ravb: Move reference clock enable/disable on runtime PM APIs

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: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 15:53:36 +0200
From: claudiu beznea <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>
To: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>, davem@...emloft.net,
 edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
 richardcochran@...il.com, p.zabel@...gutronix.de, geert+renesas@...der.be
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@...renesas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 07/15] net: ravb: Move reference clock
 enable/disable on runtime PM APIs



On 23.01.2024 22:43, Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
> On 1/23/24 3:58 PM, Claudiu wrote:
> 
>> From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@...renesas.com>
>>
>> Reference clock could be or not part of the power domain. If it is part of
> 
>    Could be or not be, perhaps?
> 
>> the power domain, the power domain takes care of propertly setting it. In
> 
>    Properly. :-)
> 
>> case it is not part of the power domain and full runtime PM support is
>> available in driver the clock will not be propertly disabled/enabled at
>> runtime. For this, keep the prepare/unprepare operations in the driver's
>> probe()/remove() functions and move the enable/disable in runtime PM
>> functions.
>>
>> Along with it, the other clock request operations were moved close to
>> reference clock request and prepare to have all the clock requests
>> specific code grouped together.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@...renesas.com>
> [...]
> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c
>> index 9fc0e39e33c2..4673cc2faec0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c
> [...]
>> @@ -3060,21 +3058,27 @@ static int ravb_resume(struct device *dev)
>>  	return ret;
>>  }
>>  
>> -static int ravb_runtime_nop(struct device *dev)
>> +static int ravb_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>  {
>> -	/* Runtime PM callback shared between ->runtime_suspend()
>> -	 * and ->runtime_resume(). Simply returns success.
>> -	 *
>> -	 * This driver re-initializes all registers after
>> -	 * pm_runtime_get_sync() anyway so there is no need
>> -	 * to save and restore registers here.
>> -	 */
> 
>    I want to pull out the dummy {ravb|sh_eth}_runtime_nop() funcs --
> they don't seem to be necessary... Then we can implement your clock
> dance with freshly added ravb_runtime_{suspend|resume}()...

For this series, does it worth having a patch that removes ravb runtime
suspend/resume ops to then add a new patch that add it it again?
I can do it but it I see no reason in doing it in this series...

The dummy functions were there and the commit description explains the
reason they were updated.

Thank you,
Claudiu Beznea

> 
> [...]
> 
> MBR, Sergey