linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 4/5] ACPI, PM, Specify lowest allowed state for device sleep state

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 4 May 2012 22:10:27 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, ming.m.lin@...el.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	Zheng Yan <zheng.z.yan@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 4/5] ACPI, PM, Specify lowest allowed state for device sleep state

On Friday, May 04, 2012, Huang Ying wrote:
> Lower device sleep state can save more power, but has more exit
> latency too.  Sometimes, to satisfy some power QoS and other
> requirement, we need to constrain the lowest device sleep state.
> 
> In this patch, a parameter to specify lowest allowed state for
> acpi_pm_device_sleep_state is added.  So that the caller can enforce
> the constraint via the parameter.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/sleep.c       |   18 +++++++++++++++---
>  drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c     |    3 ++-
>  drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c |    4 ++--
>  include/acpi/acpi_bus.h    |    6 +++---
>  4 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> @@ -677,6 +677,7 @@ int acpi_suspend(u32 acpi_state)
>   *	@dev: device to examine; its driver model wakeup flags control
>   *		whether it should be able to wake up the system
>   *	@d_min_p: used to store the upper limit of allowed states range
> + *	@d_max_in: specify the lowest allowed states
>   *	Return value: preferred power state of the device on success, -ENODEV on
>   *		failure (ie. if there's no 'struct acpi_device' for @dev)
>   *
> @@ -693,7 +694,7 @@ int acpi_suspend(u32 acpi_state)
>   *	via @wake.
>   */
>  
> -int acpi_pm_device_sleep_state(struct device *dev, int *d_min_p)
> +int acpi_pm_device_sleep_state(struct device *dev, int *d_min_p, int d_max_in)
>  {
>  	acpi_handle handle = DEVICE_ACPI_HANDLE(dev);
>  	struct acpi_device *adev;
> @@ -704,11 +705,14 @@ int acpi_pm_device_sleep_state(struct de
>  		printk(KERN_DEBUG "ACPI handle has no context!\n");
>  		return -ENODEV;
>  	}
> +	d_max_in = clamp_t(int, d_max_in, ACPI_STATE_D0, ACPI_STATE_D3);

Shouldn't that be clamp_val(), rather?

>  
>  	acpi_method[2] = '0' + acpi_target_sleep_state;
>  	/*
> -	 * If the sleep state is S0, we will return D3, but if the device has
> -	 * _S0W, we will use the value from _S0W
> +	 * If the sleep state is S0, the lowest limit from ACPI is D3,
> +	 * but if the device has _S0W, we will use the value from _S0W
> +	 * as the lowest limit from ACPI.  Finally, we will constrain
> +	 * the lowest limit with the specified one.
>  	 */
>  	d_min = ACPI_STATE_D0;
>  	d_max = ACPI_STATE_D3;
> @@ -754,6 +758,14 @@ int acpi_pm_device_sleep_state(struct de
>  
>  	if (d_min_p)
>  		*d_min_p = d_min;
> +	/* constrain d_max with specified lowest limit (max number) */
> +	if (d_max > d_max_in) {
> +		d_max = d_max_in;
> +		for (;d_max > d_min; d_max--) {

Well, why didn't you do

+		for (d_max = d_max_in; d_max > d_min; d_max--)

> +			if (adev->power.states[d_max].flags.valid)
> +				break;
> +		}
> +	}

And what if d_min > d_max_in ?

>  	return d_max;
>  }
>  #endif /* CONFIG_PM */
> --- a/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c
> @@ -189,7 +189,8 @@ static pci_power_t acpi_pci_choose_state
>  {
>  	int acpi_state;
>  
> -	acpi_state = acpi_pm_device_sleep_state(&pdev->dev, NULL);
> +	acpi_state = acpi_pm_device_sleep_state(&pdev->dev, NULL,
> +						ACPI_STATE_D3);
>  	if (acpi_state < 0)
>  		return PCI_POWER_ERROR;
>  
> --- a/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c
> @@ -170,8 +170,8 @@ static int pnpacpi_suspend(struct pnp_de
>  	}
>  
>  	if (acpi_bus_power_manageable(handle)) {
> -		int power_state = acpi_pm_device_sleep_state(&dev->dev, NULL);
> -
> +		int power_state = acpi_pm_device_sleep_state(&dev->dev, NULL,
> +							     ACPI_STATE_D3);
>  		if (power_state < 0)
>  			power_state = (state.event == PM_EVENT_ON) ?
>  					ACPI_STATE_D0 : ACPI_STATE_D3;
> --- a/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> +++ b/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> @@ -383,13 +383,13 @@ int acpi_enable_wakeup_device_power(stru
>  int acpi_disable_wakeup_device_power(struct acpi_device *dev);
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_PM
> -int acpi_pm_device_sleep_state(struct device *, int *);
> +int acpi_pm_device_sleep_state(struct device *, int *, int);
>  #else
> -static inline int acpi_pm_device_sleep_state(struct device *d, int *p)
> +static inline int acpi_pm_device_sleep_state(struct device *d, int *p, int m)
>  {
>  	if (p)
>  		*p = ACPI_STATE_D0;
> -	return ACPI_STATE_D3;
> +	return m == ACPI_STATE_D3 ? m : ACPI_STATE_D0;

Shouldn't m be returned (so long as it is between D0 and D3 inclusive)?  IOW:

+	return (m >= ACPI_STATE_D0 && m <= ACPI_STATE_D3) ? m : ACPI_STATE_D0;

>  }
>  #endif

Rafael
--
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/