linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] PM / Wakeirq: Add minimal device wakeirq helper functions

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: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1503081131510.3638-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date:	Sun, 8 Mar 2015 11:34:06 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
cc:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Andreas Fenkart <afenkart@...il.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>,
	Huiquan Zhong <huiquan.zhong@...el.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
	Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] PM / Wakeirq: Add minimal device wakeirq helper
 functions

On Sat, 7 Mar 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> > > Well right now it's using threaded irq, and I'd like to get rid of
> > > I'll verify again, but I believe the issue was that without doing
> > > mark_last_busy here the device falls back asleep right away.
> > > That probably should be fixed in pm_runtime in general if that's
> > > the case.
> > 
> > It's up to the subsystem to handle this.  For example, the USB 
> > subsystem's runtime-resume routine calls pm_runtime_mark_last_busy.
> 
> I'm wondering, though, if there's any reason for us to avoid updating
> power.last_busy in rpm_resume().
> 
> If I was a driver writer, I'd expect the core to do that for me quite frankly.

In theory, you might want to wake up a device to perform some very 
limited operation (like reading an internal register) and then put it 
back into suspend very quickly, without waiting for the autosuspend 
delay to elapse.  Apart from that, I can't think of any reason not to 
update last_busy in rpm_resume.

Alan Stern

--
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/