linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mtd: intel-dg: wake card on operations

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: <aPedq3pz2TXYUSEk@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 17:50:19 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Alexander Usyskin <alexander.usyskin@...el.com>
Cc: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Reuven Abliyev <reuven.abliyev@...el.com>,
	Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mtd: intel-dg: wake card on operations

On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 03:32:46PM +0300, Alexander Usyskin wrote:
> The Intel DG cards do not have separate power control for
> persistent memory.
> The memory is available when the whole card is awake.
> 
> Enable runtime PM in mtd driver to notify parent graphics driver
> that whole card should be kept awake while nvm operations are
> performed through this driver.

> CC: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>

It's possible to make less noise in the commit message by moving Cc:s to...

> Signed-off-by: Alexander Usyskin <alexander.usyskin@...el.com>
> ---

...here. It will have the same effect on email, but commit message will be
cleaner.

> V2: Address review comments (Andrey S)

I think you meant Andy or Andriy here :-)

...

> +	devm_pm_runtime_enable(device);

I consider this as a wrong pattern of devm_*() usage. If one uses devm_*() they
should check for errors and act accordingly. (One way can be a printed warning,
but again, the devm_*() call inside can be implemented differently. It might
make device be enabled for a moment and fail due to upper layer issues, such as
memory allocation. In such case the error is different because it comes from
a different layer and you effectively ignore it without a reason. Hence either
check for errors, or drop devm_*() here.)

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko