linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] [RFC] PCI: Runtime power management

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]

Date:	Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:01:32 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>, <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC] PCI: Runtime power management

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> On Friday 14 August 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday 14 August 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 11:22:44AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> ...
> > > > Though perhaps the device level runtime_idle shouldn't be void - that 
> > > > way the bus can ask the driver whether its suspend conditions have been 
> > > > satisfied? Right now there doesn't seem to be any way for the bus to ask 
> > > > that.
> > > 
> > > If you want to get the device-level runtime_idle involved, you can make
> > > _it_ responsible for scheduling the suspend.  Then the bus-level code
> > > simply has to check whether everything is okay at the bus level, and if
> > > it is, call the device-level routine.
> > > 
> > > However changing the return type wouldn't hurt anything, and it would 
> > > allow the pm_schedule_suspend call to be centralized in the bus code.  
> > > You could ask Rafael about it, or just send him a patch.
> > 
> > Well, I'm not against that, but what should pm_runtime_idle() do with the
> > result returned by it?  Just pass it to the caller?
> 
> Hm, perhaps its better to ignore it, though.

That's what I was going to say.  The return value is intended for use 
by bus-level code when calling a driver-level routine.

Alan Stern

--
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/