[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240305200306921-0800.eberman@hu-eberman-lv.qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:10:55 -0800
From: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@...cinc.com>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
CC: 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: Re: [PATCH] firmware: qcom_scm: disable clocks if
qcom_scm_bw_enable() fails
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.
Thanks,
Elliot
Powered by blists - more mailing lists