linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] spi: dw-mmio: support suspend/resume

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: <6b89afd5-9e6c-45ed-835d-6e0d1906aa14@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 16:07:11 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: dw-mmio: support suspend/resume

On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 05:01:54PM +0100, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 05:57:42PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > These were allocated using devm_clk_get_prepare_enable() so we shouldn't
> > really be fiddling with the state at runtime.  In practice this should
> > always be fine I think but it's not really something we're supposed to
> > be doing, in theory we could fail to resume and then end up doing a
> > double disable on removal.  Probably the open coded version would have
> > the same issue though so perhaps this is pedantic...

> We clearly can call clk_disable(), but I'm not sure unprepare is the stage that
> has no side-effects here.

What makes you say that disable is OK?

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)