linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pmdomain: arm: Fix debugfs node creation failure

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAPDyKFqmV7yvMdLjGhDHJN4CFiUun3FXprEk7uGFV_qmn9vA8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 12:46:15 +0200
From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@...cinc.com>
Cc: cristian.marussi@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	arm-scmi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, 
	quic_rgottimu@...cinc.com, quic_kshivnan@...cinc.com, johan@...nel.org, 
	Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pmdomain: arm: Fix debugfs node creation failure

On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 at 15:31, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 02:38:24PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >
> > Sudeep, while I understand your point and I agree with it, it's really
> > a simple fix that $subject patch is proposing. As the unique name
> > isn't mandated by the SCMI spec, it looks to me that we should make a
> > fix for it on the Linux side.
> >
>
> Yes, I did come to the conclusion that this is inevitable but hadn't
> thought much on the exact solution. This email and you merging the original
> patch made me think a bit quickly now 😉

Alright, great!

>
> > I have therefore decided to queue up $subject patch for fixes. Please
> > let me know if you have any other proposals/objections moving forward.
>
> The original patch may not work well with the use case Peng presented.
> As the name and id may also match in their case, I was wondering if we
> need to add some prefix like perf- or something to avoid the potential
> clash across power and perf genpds ? I may be missing something still as
> it is hard to visualise all possible case that can happen with variety
> of platform and their firmware.
>
> In short, happy to have some fix for the issue in some form whichever
> works for wider set of platforms.

Okay, so I have dropped the $subject patch from my fixes branch for
now, to allow us and Sibi to come up with an improved approach.

That said, it looks to me that the proper fix needs to involve
pm_genpd_init() in some way, as this problem with unique device naming
isn't really limited to SCMI. Normally we use an "ida" to get a unique
index that we tag on to the device's name, but maybe there is a better
strategy here!?

Kind regards
Uffe