linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] soc: qcom: rpmh: Add support to read back resource settings

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: <9e8b47d8-9a20-40da-a6eb-cdd167c108dd@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 12:26:20 +0100
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
To: Kamal Wadhwa <kamal.wadhwa@....qualcomm.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Maulik Shah <maulik.shah@....qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] soc: qcom: rpmh: Add support to read back resource
 settings

On 10/21/25 11:08 PM, Kamal Wadhwa wrote:
> From: Maulik Shah <maulik.shah@....qualcomm.com>
> 
> All rpmh_*() APIs so far have supported placing votes for various
> resource settings but the H/W also have option to read resource
> settings.
> 
> This change adds a new rpmh_read() API to allow clients
> to read back resource setting from H/W. This will be useful for
> clients like regulators, which currently don't have a way to know
> the settings applied during bootloader stage.
> 
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250623-add-rpmh-read-support-v1-1-ae583d260195@oss.qualcomm.com
> Signed-off-by: Maulik Shah <maulik.shah@....qualcomm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kamal Wadhwa <kamal.wadhwa@....qualcomm.com>
> ---

[...]

> +int rpmh_read(const struct device *dev, struct tcs_cmd *cmd)
> +{
> +	DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK(compl);
> +	DEFINE_RPMH_MSG_ONSTACK(dev, RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE, &compl, rpm_msg);
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = __fill_rpmh_msg(&rpm_msg, RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE, cmd, 1, true);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	ret = __rpmh_write(dev, RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE, &rpm_msg);

Is there a reason for making this ACTIVE_ONLY?

Konrad