[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2fdb87f5-3702-44d9-9ebe-974c4a53a77d@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 17:02:37 +0100
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
To: Gabor Juhos <j4g8y7@...il.com>, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@...cinc.com>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: qcom_scm: disable clocks if
qcom_scm_bw_enable() fails
On 3/6/24 05:10, Elliot Berman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 10:15:19PM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/4/24 14:14, Gabor Juhos wrote:
>>> There are several functions which are calling qcom_scm_bw_enable()
>>> then returns immediately if the call fails and leaves the clocks
>>> enabled.
>>>
>>> Change the code of these functions to disable clocks when the
>>> qcom_scm_bw_enable() call fails. This also fixes a possible dma
>>> buffer leak in the qcom_scm_pas_init_image() function.
>>>
>>> Compile tested only due to lack of hardware with interconnect
>>> support.
>>>
>>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>>> Fixes: 65b7ebda5028 ("firmware: qcom_scm: Add bw voting support to the SCM interface")
>>> Signed-off-by: Gabor Juhos <j4g8y7@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> Taking a closer look, is there any argument against simply
>> putting the clk/bw en/dis calls in qcom_scm_call()?
>
> We shouldn't do this because the clk/bw en/dis calls are only needed in
> few SCM calls.
Then the argument list could be expanded with `bool require_resources`,
or so still saving us a lot of boilerplate
Konrad
Powered by blists - more mailing lists