linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] pmdomain: ti_sci: add wakeup constraint management

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: <5qvb3vt5s7egkyzpitgys6uylvvttrpbcar2dgshp2kk5he6sk@p34xb2xmebxq>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 10:18:47 +0200
From: Markus Schneider-Pargmann <msp@...libre.com>
To: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>
Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, 
	Vibhore Vardhan <vibhore@...com>, Dhruva Gole <d-gole@...com>, Akashdeep Kaur <a-kaur@...com>, 
	Sebin Francis <sebin.francis@...com>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 20240801195422.2296347-1-msp@...libre.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] pmdomain: ti_sci: add wakeup constraint management

On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 04:38:40PM GMT, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> During system-wide suspend, check all devices connected to PM domain
> to see if they are wakeup-enabled.  If so, set a TI SCI device
> constraint.
> 
> Note: DM firmware clears all constraints on resume.
> 
> Co-developed-by: Vibhore Vardhan <vibhore@...com>
> Signed-off-by: Vibhore Vardhan <vibhore@...com>
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@...com>
> ---
>  drivers/pmdomain/ti/ti_sci_pm_domains.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pmdomain/ti/ti_sci_pm_domains.c b/drivers/pmdomain/ti/ti_sci_pm_domains.c
> index 4dc48a97f9b8..7cd6ae957289 100644
> --- a/drivers/pmdomain/ti/ti_sci_pm_domains.c
> +++ b/drivers/pmdomain/ti/ti_sci_pm_domains.c
> @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ struct ti_sci_pm_domain {
>  	struct ti_sci_genpd_provider *parent;
>  	s32 lat_constraint;
>  	bool constraint_sent;
> +	bool wkup_constraint;
>  };
>  
>  #define genpd_to_ti_sci_pd(gpd) container_of(gpd, struct ti_sci_pm_domain, pd)
> @@ -87,6 +88,26 @@ static inline void ti_sci_pd_clear_constraints(struct device *dev)
>  
>  	pd->lat_constraint = PM_QOS_RESUME_LATENCY_NO_CONSTRAINT;
>  	pd->constraint_sent = false;
> +	pd->wkup_constraint = false;
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool ti_sci_pd_check_wkup_constraint(struct device *dev)

'check' in the function name sounds like a passive function. Maybe
ti_sci_pd_send_wkup_constraint() would indicate its purpose better?

> +{
> +	struct generic_pm_domain *genpd = pd_to_genpd(dev->pm_domain);
> +	struct ti_sci_pm_domain *pd = genpd_to_ti_sci_pd(genpd);
> +	const struct ti_sci_handle *ti_sci = pd->parent->ti_sci;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	if (device_may_wakeup(dev)) {
> +		ret = ti_sci->ops.pm_ops.set_device_constraint(ti_sci, pd->idx,
> +							       TISCI_MSG_CONSTRAINT_SET);
> +		if (!ret) {
> +			pd->wkup_constraint = true;
> +			dev_dbg(dev, "ti_sci_pd: ID:%d set device constraint.\n", pd->idx);
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	return pd->wkup_constraint;

Is this return value used anywhere?

Best
Markus

>  }
>  
>  /*
> @@ -158,6 +179,8 @@ static int ti_sci_pd_suspend(struct device *dev)
>  	}
>  	pd->lat_constraint = val;
>  
> +	ti_sci_pd_check_wkup_constraint(dev);
> +
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> 
> -- 
> 2.46.0
>