linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] 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: <CY5PR11MB6366DA1D185F4FF2C01EA3B7EDF0A@CY5PR11MB6366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 10:53:17 +0000
From: "Usyskin, Alexander" <alexander.usyskin@...el.com>
To: "De Marchi, Lucas" <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>, Andy Shevchenko
	<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
CC: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>, Richard Weinberger
	<richard@....at>, Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
	"linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Abliyev,
 Reuven" <reuven.abliyev@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] mtd: intel-dg: wake card on operations

> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: intel-dg: wake card on operations
> 
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 05:39:34PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 12:51:30PM +0000, Usyskin, Alexander wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 01:09:10PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> > > On Sun, Oct 19, 2025 at 06:01:45PM +0300, Alexander Usyskin wrote:
> >
> >...
> >
> >> > > > +	devm_pm_runtime_enable(device);
> >> > >
> >> > > Please, justify why this code is good without error checking. Before
> doing
> >> > that
> >> > > think for a moment for the cases when devm_*() might be developed
> in the
> >> > future
> >> > > and return something interesting (if not yet).
> >>
> >> We should not fail the probe because of runtime  pm enablement failure, I
> suppose.
> 
> not really
> 
> >> There are other ways to keep card awake.
> >> The pm_runtime_* functions work without runtime_enable but have no
> effect.
> >> Thus, we can ignore failure here.
> >
> >Using devm_*() in such a case is misleading. It incorporates errors from
> >different layers and ignoring both is odd.
> >
> >I would suggest to avoid using devm_*() in this case and put a comment on
> >the ignored PM errors (however, personally I think this approach is wrong).
> 
> Agreed. We should not silently continue on error. Fix the cause of the
> error intead. If it's something that can be disabled in
> runtime/configure time, and it doesn't return success, handle that
> specific error code.
> 
> If there's a reason to ignore the error, it should be intentional.
> 
> Lucas De Marchi

Ok, will check and fail the probe on this api failure.


- - 
Thanks,
Sasha