linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] remoteproc: k3-r5: Introduce suspend to ram support

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3a208581-2fd4-4522-8cb5-c61fd52990c1@bootlin.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 09:33:58 +0200
From: Richard GENOUD <richard.genoud@...tlin.com>
To: Hari Nagalla <hnagalla@...com>, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
 Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Cc: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>, Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>,
 Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
 Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
 Udit Kumar <u-kumar1@...com>, Thomas Richard <thomas.richard@...tlin.com>,
 Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
 Théo Lebrun <theo.lebrun@...tlin.com>,
 linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] remoteproc: k3-r5: Introduce suspend to ram support

Le 01/07/2024 à 11:59, Hari Nagalla a écrit :
> On 6/21/24 10:00, Richard Genoud wrote:
>> Richard Genoud (4):
>>    remoteproc: k3-r5: Fix IPC-only mode detection
>>    remoteproc: k3-r5: Introduce PM suspend/resume handlers
>>    remoteproc: k3-r5: k3_r5_rproc_stop: code reorder
>>    remoteproc: k3-r5: support for graceful stop of remote cores
> IMO, the patches are better reordered as below (since there is a LPM 
> rearch in progress)
> patch1 - Independent of other patches and is clearly a bug fix.
> patch3,4 - Support for graceful shutdown. A separate feature used by 
> customers wanting to change FW at runtime and is independent of 
> suspend/resume.
> patch 2 - suspend/resume handlers..
> 

Indeed, patches 2, 3, 4 still need some internal discussions.

But I think patch 1 could be taken as is, since it's a bug fix.

Regards,
Richard