linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] cpufreq: tegra124: Remove use of disable

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: <20250520100218.te5i5ltrx43zjsq6@vireshk-i7>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 15:32:18 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
Cc: webgeek1234@...il.com, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] cpufreq: tegra124: Remove use of disable_cpufreq

On 20-05-25, 10:53, Jon Hunter wrote:
> I understand, but this seems odd. It would be odd that the device may just
> disappear after resuming from suspend if it fails to resume. I have not seen
> this done for other drivers that fail to resume. Presumably this is not the
> only CPU Freq driver that could fail to resume either?
> 
> It makes the code messy because now we have more than one place where the
> device could be unregistered.

Fair enough.

This driver, along with other cpufreq drivers, can fail at multiple
places during suspend/resume (and other operations). If something goes
wrong, we print an error to inform the user. Should we avoid doing
anything else (like everyone else) ? i.e. Just remove the call to
disable_cpufreq(), as all later calls will fail anyway.

This is the only driver that behaves differently on failures.

-- 
viresh