linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] Power domains for platform bus type

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: <20110131225902.GD27856@angua.secretlab.ca>
Date:	Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:59:02 -0700
From:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Power domains for platform bus type

On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 01:07:19AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This is something we discussed during the last Linux Plumbers Conference.
> 
> The problem appears to be that the same device may be used in different
> systems in different configurations such that actions necessary for the
> device's power management can vary from one system to another.  In those
> cases the drivers' power management callbacks are generally not sufficient,
> because they can't take the configuration of the whole system into account.
> 
> I think this issue may be addressed by adding objects that will represent
> power domains and will provide power management callbacks to be executed
> in addition to the device driver's PM callbacks, which is done by the patch
> below.
> 
> Please have a look at it and tell me what you think.

In general it looks okay.  I agree with Alan's comment that it
probably belongs outside the platform device pm ops.  It's the sort of
thing that should be available to *any* device, regardless of bus
type.  ie. it is conceivable that some spi and i2c devices would be in
need to be in the same power_domain.

It slightly worries me about the amount of code required to manage all the
nested levels of pm_ops.  I wonder if there is a better way to manage
them.

Also, what is the use case for having 2 sets of power_domain ops?  My
gut tells me that you'd only want to do post ops on the
{freeze,suspend,poweroff} path and pre ops on the {resume,thaw,restore}
path.  It seems overly engineered to me, but I may be missing
something fundamental.

g.

--
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/