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: <ec9e420a-932d-4265-8cac-dee003933898@quicinc.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2026 10:41:20 +0530
From: Udit Tiwari <quic_utiwari@...cinc.com>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>,
        <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, <thara.gopinath@...il.com>,
        <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <quic_neersoni@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] crypto: qce - Add runtime PM and interconnect
 bandwidth scaling support



On 12/5/2025 4:59 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 11/20/25 7:24 AM, quic_utiwari@...cinc.com wrote:
>> From: Udit Tiwari <quic_utiwari@...cinc.com>
>>
>> The Qualcomm Crypto Engine (QCE) driver currently lacks support for
>> runtime power management (PM) and interconnect bandwidth control.
>> As a result, the hardware remains fully powered and clocks stay
>> enabled even when the device is idle. Additionally, static
>> interconnect bandwidth votes are held indefinitely, preventing the
>> system from reclaiming unused bandwidth.
> 
> [...]
> 
>> @@ -90,13 +93,17 @@ static int qce_handle_queue(struct qce_device *qce,
>>   	struct crypto_async_request *async_req, *backlog;
>>   	int ret = 0, err;
>>   
>> +	ret = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(qce->dev);
>> +	if (ret < 0)
>> +		return ret;
>> +
> 
> This is quite new, but maybe we could use
> 
> ACQUIRE(pm_runtime_active_try, pm)(qce->dev);
> ret = ACQUIRE_ERR(pm_runtime_active_auto_try, &pm)
> if (ret)
> 	return ret;
> 
> and drop the goto-s
> 
> Konrad

Thanks for the review and suggestion konrad.

The optimization you proposed is more of an incremental refinement 
rather than a functional fix, and I’d prefer to keep this patch focused 
so it’s easier to review and backport. Would it be acceptable to merge 
this as-is and handle that optimization in a small follow-up patch?

If you consider it a hard requirement for this series, I can rework it, 
but my preference is to land the functional PM support first and then 
iterate.

Best regards,
Udit

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ