linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v3 PATCH 1/5] of: Add standard property for poweroff capability

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, 23 Oct 2014 11:53:39 +0200
From:	Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:	Romain Perier <romain.perier@...il.com>
Cc:	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, broonie@...nel.org,
	lgirdwood@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, heiko@...ech.de,
	grant.likely@...aro.org, robh@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 PATCH 1/5] of: Add standard property for poweroff
 capability

[ +CC: Guenter, Lee, linux-pm ]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 06:31:09AM +0000, Romain Perier wrote:
> Several drivers create their own devicetree property when they register
> poweroff capabilities. This is for example the case for mfd, regulator
> or power drivers which define "vendor,system-power-controller" property.
> This patch adds support for a standard property "poweroff-source"

Shouldn't this property really be called "power-off-source" or even
"power-off-controller"?

The power-off handler call-chain infrastructure is about to be merged
and will be using power[-_ ]off (i.e. not "poweroff") consistently (at
least in its interface).

Furthermore, isn't "controller" as in "power-off-controller" more
appropriate than "source" in this case? We have wake-up sources, which
might appear analogous, but that really isn't the same thing.

I now this has already been merged to the regulator tree, but there's
still still time to fix this.

> which marks the device as able to shutdown the system.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Romain Perier <romain.perier@...il.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/of.h | 11 +++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/of.h b/include/linux/of.h
> index 6545e7a..27b3ba1 100644
> --- a/include/linux/of.h
> +++ b/include/linux/of.h
> @@ -866,4 +866,15 @@ static inline int of_changeset_update_property(struct of_changeset *ocs,
>  /* CONFIG_OF_RESOLVE api */
>  extern int of_resolve_phandles(struct device_node *tree);
>  
> +/**
> + * of_system_has_poweroff_source - Tells if poweroff-source is found for device_node
> + * @np: Pointer to the given device_node
> + *
> + * return true if present false otherwise
> + */
> +static inline bool of_system_has_poweroff_source(const struct device_node *np)

Why "system_has"? Shouldn't this be of_is_power_off_source (controller)?

> +{
> +	return of_property_read_bool(np, "poweroff-source");
> +}
> +
>  #endif /* _LINUX_OF_H */

Thanks,
Johan
--
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/