linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] PM / Domains: Make it possible to use per-device .active

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:	Tue, 8 Nov 2011 21:40:00 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>
Cc:	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Linux-sh list" <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>, jean.pihet@...oldbits.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] PM / Domains: Make it possible to use per-device .active_wakeup()

On Tuesday, November 08, 2011, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
> > 
> > The current generic PM domains code requires that the same
> > .active_wakeup() device callback routine be used for all devices in
> > the given domain, which is inflexible and may not cover some specific
> > use cases.  For this reason, make it possible to use device specific
> > .active_wakeup() callback routines by adding a corresponding callback
> > pointer to struct generic_pm_domain_data.  To reduce code duplication
> > use struct gpd_dev_ops to represent PM domain device callbacks as
> > well as device-specific ones and add a macro for defining routines
> > that will execute those callbacks.
> > 
> > Modify the shmobile's power domains code to allow drivers to use
> > their own .active_wakeup() callback routines.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-sh7372.c |   11 ++++---
> >  drivers/base/power/domain.c        |   54 ++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> >  include/linux/pm_domain.h          |   15 ++++------
> >  3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Index: linux/include/linux/pm_domain.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux.orig/include/linux/pm_domain.h
> > +++ linux/include/linux/pm_domain.h
> > @@ -23,6 +23,12 @@ struct dev_power_governor {
> >  	bool (*power_down_ok)(struct dev_pm_domain *domain);
> >  };
> >  
> > +struct gpd_dev_ops {
> > +	int (*start)(struct device *dev);
> > +	int (*stop)(struct device *dev);
> > +	bool (*active_wakeup)(struct device *dev);
> > +};
> > +
> >  struct generic_pm_domain {
> >  	struct dev_pm_domain domain;	/* PM domain operations */
> >  	struct list_head gpd_list_node;	/* Node in the global PM domains list */
> > @@ -45,9 +51,7 @@ struct generic_pm_domain {
> >  	bool dev_irq_safe;	/* Device callbacks are IRQ-safe */
> >  	int (*power_off)(struct generic_pm_domain *domain);
> >  	int (*power_on)(struct generic_pm_domain *domain);
> > -	int (*start_device)(struct device *dev);
> > -	int (*stop_device)(struct device *dev);
> > -	bool (*active_wakeup)(struct device *dev);
> > +	struct gpd_dev_ops dev_ops;
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to merge patches 1 and 2?

First, why would it?

Second, why does it matter?

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/