linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: Add infrastructure for refcounting GPE consumers

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]

Message-ID: <4911F71203A09E4D9981D27F9D8308583774349D@orsmsx503.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:19:23 -0700
From:	"Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@...el.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>
CC:	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: Add infrastructure for refcounting GPE
 consumers

I have a couple of comments and questions:

1) The core issue that needs to be solved concerns enabling/disabling the wake and wake/run GPEs, is this correct? As far as I can tell, the normal runtime GPEs do not need any change. The runtime GPEs are mostly defined by _Lxx/_Exx methods. The main exception to this is the EC, it has a GPE defined by the _GPE method under the EC device. Are there any issues here?

2) A large change that goes unmentioned is that the ACPICA core would no longer execute the _PRW control methods in order to discover the wake GPEs. This makes sense to me because it is clear that the bus scan code must execute these _PRW methods anyway, in order to obtain the wake GPE and other info. So it makes sense to just remove the _PRW and wake GPE management code from ACPICA and let the host OS and drivers handle this task, since it does it already anyway. Do I understand this correctly?

Thanks,
Bob

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:rjw@...k.pl]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 2:31 PM
>To: Matthew Garrett
>Cc: Moore, Robert; linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: Add infrastructure for refcounting GPE
>consumers
>
>On Wednesday 02 September 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> ACPI GPEs may map to multiple devices. The current GPE interface only
>> provides a mechanism for enabling and disabling GPEs, making it difficult
>> to change the state of GPEs at runtime without extensive cooperation
>> between devices. Add an API to allow devices to indicate whether or not
>> they want their device's GPE to be enabled for both runtime and wakeup
>> events.
>
>Looks fine in general, but are we going to do anything about unbalanced
>puts?
>
>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/