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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2022 17:54:33 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> To: Ravi Gunasekaran <r-gunasekaran@...com> Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kishon@...com, vigneshr@...com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: ethernet: ti: davinci_mdio: Add workaround for errata i2329 > sh_eth is not configured for autosuspend and uses only pm_runtime_put(). I don't know the runtime power management code very well. We should probably ask somebody how does. However: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/base/power/runtime.c#L168 This suggests it should be safe to perform an auto suspend on a device which is not configured for auto suspend. To me, it looks like is should directly suspend. Devices are in a tree. If you suspend a leaf, you can walk up the tree and suspend its parent as well, if it is not needed. Similarly, if you wake a leaf, you need its parents awake as well, so you need to walk up the tree and wake them. In order for this to work reliably, i expect runtime PM to be very tolerant. If a device is not configured for runtime PM, actions should be a NOP. If it is not configured for auto suspend, and you ask it to auto suspend, to me, it would make sense for it to immediately suspend, etc. > Please provide your views on this. Your inputs on the next course of action > would be helpful. I would suggest you talk to somebody who knows about runtime PM. Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists