| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <YR7rR6d4nSRea1oX@ripper>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 16:37:43 -0700
From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Cc: Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@...il.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Stanimir Varbanov <svarbanov@...sol.com>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org,
ath10k@...ts.infradead.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/15] power: add power sequencer subsystem
On Mon 16 Aug 17:54 PDT 2021, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> Basing on MMC's pwrseq support code, add separate power sequencer
> subsystem. It will be used by other drivers to handle device power up
> requirements.
>
Some more background to why we need a pwrseq framework wouldn't hurt.
[..]
> diff --git a/drivers/power/pwrseq/core.c b/drivers/power/pwrseq/core.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..20485cae29aa
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/power/pwrseq/core.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,411 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> +//
> +// Copyright 2021 (c) Linaro Ltd.
> +// Author: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
> +//
> +// Based on phy-core.c:
> +// Copyright (C) 2013 Texas Instruments Incorporated - http://www.ti.com
The typical format is:
// SPDX using C++ style comment
/*
* Copyright stuff using C style comment
*/
> +
> +#include <linux/device.h>
> +#include <linux/idr.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/mutex.h>
> +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
> +#include <linux/pwrseq/consumer.h>
> +#include <linux/pwrseq/driver.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +
> +#define to_pwrseq(a) (container_of((a), struct pwrseq, dev))
No need for the extra parenthesis around container_of()
> +
> +static DEFINE_IDA(pwrseq_ida);
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(pwrseq_provider_mutex);
> +static LIST_HEAD(pwrseq_provider_list);
> +
> +struct pwrseq_provider {
> + struct device *dev;
> + struct module *owner;
> + struct list_head list;
> + void *data;
> + struct pwrseq * (*of_xlate)(void *data, struct of_phandle_args *args);
> +};
> +
> +void pwrseq_put(struct device *dev, struct pwrseq *pwrseq)
> +{
> + device_link_remove(dev, &pwrseq->dev);
> +
> + module_put(pwrseq->owner);
> + put_device(&pwrseq->dev);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwrseq_put);
> +
> +static struct pwrseq_provider *of_pwrseq_provider_lookup(struct device_node *node)
> +{
> + struct pwrseq_provider *pwrseq_provider;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(pwrseq_provider, &pwrseq_provider_list, list) {
> + if (pwrseq_provider->dev->of_node == node)
> + return pwrseq_provider;
> + }
> +
> + return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
> +}
> +
> +static struct pwrseq *_of_pwrseq_get(struct device *dev, const char *id)
> +{
> + struct pwrseq_provider *pwrseq_provider;
> + struct pwrseq *pwrseq;
> + struct of_phandle_args args;
> + char prop_name[64]; /* 64 is max size of property name */
> + int ret;
> +
> + snprintf(prop_name, 64, "%s-pwrseq", id);
sizeof(prop_name), to avoid giving others a chance to "fix" it later?
> + ret = of_parse_phandle_with_args(dev->of_node, prop_name, "#pwrseq-cells", 0, &args);
> + if (ret) {
> + struct device_node *dn;
> +
> + /*
> + * Parsing failed. Try locating old bindings for mmc-pwrseq,
> + * which did not use #pwrseq-cells.
> + */
> + if (strcmp(id, "mmc"))
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> +
> + dn = of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, prop_name, 0);
> + if (!dn)
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> +
> + args.np = dn;
> + args.args_count = 0;
> + }
> +
> + mutex_lock(&pwrseq_provider_mutex);
> + pwrseq_provider = of_pwrseq_provider_lookup(args.np);
> + if (IS_ERR(pwrseq_provider) || !try_module_get(pwrseq_provider->owner)) {
> + pwrseq = ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
> + goto out_unlock;
> + }
> +
> + if (!of_device_is_available(args.np)) {
> + dev_warn(pwrseq_provider->dev, "Requested pwrseq is disabled\n");
> + pwrseq = ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> + goto out_put_module;
> + }
> +
> + pwrseq = pwrseq_provider->of_xlate(pwrseq_provider->data, &args);
> +
> +out_put_module:
> + module_put(pwrseq_provider->owner);
> +
> +out_unlock:
> + mutex_unlock(&pwrseq_provider_mutex);
> + of_node_put(args.np);
> +
> + return pwrseq;
> +}
> +
[..]
> +int pwrseq_pre_power_on(struct pwrseq *pwrseq)
> +{
> + if (pwrseq && pwrseq->ops->pre_power_on)
> + return pwrseq->ops->pre_power_on(pwrseq);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwrseq_pre_power_on);
> +
> +int pwrseq_power_on(struct pwrseq *pwrseq)
Wouldn't it make sense to refcount the power on/off operations and at
least warn about unbalanced disables?
My concern is related to the qca-driver's reliance on the regulator
framework to refcount the on/off of the shared resources and additional
power_off from either the WiFi or BT client would result in the other
client getting its power disabled unexpectedly - which might be
annoying to debug.
> +{
> + if (pwrseq && pwrseq->ops->power_on)
> + return pwrseq->ops->power_on(pwrseq);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwrseq_power_on);
> +
> +void pwrseq_power_off(struct pwrseq *pwrseq)
> +{
> + if (pwrseq && pwrseq->ops->power_off)
> + pwrseq->ops->power_off(pwrseq);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwrseq_power_off);
> +
> +void pwrseq_reset(struct pwrseq *pwrseq)
> +{
> + if (pwrseq && pwrseq->ops->reset)
> + pwrseq->ops->reset(pwrseq);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwrseq_reset);
> +
Regards,
Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists