linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Enable async suspend/resume on industrial IO devices

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]

Date:	Thu, 7 Apr 2011 20:26:27 -0700
From:	Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...omium.org>
To:	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@....ac.uk>
Cc:	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, bleung@...omium.org,
	snanda@...omium.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Manuel Stahl <manuel.stahl@....fraunhofer.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Phillip Kurtenbach <pkurtenbach@...il.com>,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Enable async suspend/resume on industrial IO devices

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@....ac.uk> wrote:
> On 04/06/11 23:47, Sonny Rao wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 3:59 AM, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@....ac.uk> wrote:
>>> On 04/06/11 03:45, Sonny Rao wrote:
>>>> Industrial I/O devices can sometimes take a long time to resume,
>>>> allowing them to be asynchronus saves 50ms on one light sensor
>>>>
>>> Hi Sonny,
>>>
>>> cc'd linux-iio
>>>
>>> I'm not particularly familiar with this.  Are there any disadvantages?
>>> I just wonder if it would be better to push this into individual drivers
>>> rather than the core?
>>
>> Yeah we could do it that way too, I sent out a similar patch for i2c
>> and people were asking if it was entirely safe.  It sounds like it may
>> depend on dependencies between devices.
>>
>> Do you know if any of the devices in iio have inter-device dependencies?
>> I was under the impression they were mostly stand-alone sensors that
>> ordinarily wouldn't, but I haven't tried to audit all of them or anything.
> Mostly I think is the key word here.  Right now I don't think we have anything
> that would have a problem, but putting something like that in the core is
> liable to bite sometime in the future.  For now at least I think I'd prefer
> to see it in an individual driver.
>
Ok sure, FYI, I had a similar discussion with the i2c folks and I
think the consensus was to do it per-driver as well.
The driver I was interested in was the tsl258x which isn't in staging
yet.  When it goes in, I shall submit my patch on top of that.


Thanks,
Sonny
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/