linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] suspend blockers & Android integration

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1006111045340.12006-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date:	Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:46:27 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
cc:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>, <tytso@....edu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
	Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] suspend blockers & Android integration

On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, James Bottomley wrote:

> On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 21:21 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> > Do we at least have a clean way that a driver can
> > reject a system suspend?  I've lost track of many
> > issues, but maybe this could be phrased as a QOS
> > constraint:  the current config of driver X needs
> > clock Y active to enter the  target system suspend
> > state, driver's suspend() method reports as much.  Then the entry to
> > that system state gets blocked
> > if the clock isn't enabled.
> 
> So in QoS modifications to android patches, the answer is "yes" ...
> except that the current android patch set didn't actually have this type
> of wakelock in it.
> 
> Android wants an idleness suspend block (or pm qos constraint) that a
> driver can set to prevent the system idleness power govenor from
> dropping into a power state too low for the driver, so in USB terms this
> would prevent the states that shut down the clock.  For android, it
> prevented shutdown of an internal i2c bus.
> 
> The one thing that does look difficult is that these power constraints
> are device (and sometimes SoC) specific.  Expressing them in a generic
> way for the cpu govenors to make sense of might be hard.

Doesn't the clock framework already handle this sort of thing?

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/