linux-kernel - Re: platform/i2c busses: pm runtime and system sleep

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: <20101217125427.GA29640@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:54:28 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Rabin Vincent <rabin@....in>
Cc:	rjw@...k.pl, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: platform/i2c busses: pm runtime and system sleep

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:56:57PM +0530, Rabin Vincent wrote:

> There seem to be some differences between the generic ops and the i2c
> and platform busses' implementations of the interaction between runtime
> PM and system sleep:

>   (1) The platform bus does not implement the
>       don't-call-pm->suspend()-if pm_runtime_suspended()-returns-true
>       functionality implemented by the generic ops and i2c.

This is platform lagging behind I2C in implementation - both originally 
did what platform does and then I2C was updated and platform wasn't.

It'd be really good if this could all be factored out into the PM core,
we're going to have to do the same thing for at least SPI as well and
possibly some other buses :/
--
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/