linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] mmc: core: Further avoid re-storing power to the eMMC before a shutdown

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: <CAPDyKFqf3K3-gv2+7yORw3nqxJ5bnFbCH2yB+E8=XOGuYuVsyA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 13:50:01 +0200
From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>, 
	Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@...disk.com>, 
	"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>, 
	Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>, 
	"linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] mmc: core: Further avoid re-storing power to the eMMC
 before a shutdown

On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 at 08:51, Wolfram Sang
<wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ulf,
>
> > mmc_card_can_poweroff_notify() would not be consistent with all the
> > other mmc_can_* helpers, so I rather stay with
> > mmc_can_poweroff_notify(), for now. If you think a rename makes sense,
> > I suggest we do that as a follow up and rename all the helpers.
>
> I vageuly recall that the commit I mentioned below (renaming hw_reset to
> card_hw_reset) should have been a start to do exactly this, renaming
> more of the helpers. I drifted away. Yet, I still think this would make
> MMC core code a lot easier to understand. I'll work on it today, timing
> seems good with rc1 on the horizon...

Alright!

>
> > mmc_host_can_poweroff_notify() seems fine to me!
>
> Great!
>
> > > I do understand that. I don't see why this needs a change in the
> > > existing logic as Alan pointed out above.
> >
> > Aha. I get your point now. As stated in the commit message:
> >
> > Due to an earlier suspend request the eMMC may already have been properly
> > powered-off, hence we are sometimes leaving the eMMC in its current state.
> > However, in one case when the host has MMC_CAP2_FULL_PWR_CYCLE_IN_SUSPEND
> > set we may unnecessarily restore the power to the eMMC, let's avoid this.
>
> Oookay, now I see what you are aiming at. It seems I got the PWR_CYCLE
> flags wrong? I thought MMC_CAP2_FULL_PWR_CYCLE_IN_SUSPEND is only a
> subset of MMC_CAP2_FULL_PWR_CYCLE. The former can do the power cycles
> only in suspend, while the latter can do them in suspend and shutdown.

Not exactly. In shutdown we don't need specific caps. The card will be
fully powered off no matter what. In other words, it's always better
to do poweroff-notification if the card supports it.

> So, in my thinking, full power cycle might also have the eMMC
> powered-off during shutdown. This is wrong?

See above.

>
> > Let me try to clarify the commit message a bit with this information.
>
> Whatever is the final outcome, it needs a comment in the code, I am
> quite sure.

I will add it!

>
> Happy hacking,
>
>    Wolfram
>

Kind regards
Uffe