linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] spi: attach/detach SPI device to the ACPI power domain

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:	Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:38:39 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>, Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>,
	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] spi: attach/detach SPI device to the ACPI power
 domain

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 09:12:56AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 06:55:28PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 05:04:21PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:

> > > +	if (ACPI_HANDLE(&spi->dev))
> > > +		acpi_dev_pm_attach(&spi->dev, true);

> > Though I do wonder if it wouldn't be sensible to push the if () here
> > inside acpi_dev_pm_attach() and similarly for _detach().  Terribly
> > trivial either way.

> Actually, the check is already there in acpi_dev_pm_attach()/detach(). The
> above code follows what Rafael did for platform bus previously. I think the
> idea is to have visual hint that this is only for ACPI enumerated devices.

> If preferred, I can drop the if() checks, though.

It'd seem neater - the fact that the function is acpi_ ought to be
enough of a hint.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)