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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 15:09:47 +0100 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net> To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> 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 Sunday, March 08, 2015 11:43:34 AM Alan Stern wrote: > On Sat, 7 Mar 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > But this is part of a bigger picture. Namely, if a separete wakeup interrupt > > is required for a device, the device's power.can_wakeup flag cannot be set > > until that interrupt has been successfully requested. Also for devices that > > can signal wakeup via their own IO interrupts, it would make sense to allow > > those interrupts to be registered somehow as "wakeup interrupts". > > > > So I wonder if we can define a new struct along the lines of your > > struct wakeirq_source, but call it struct wake_irq and make it look > > something like this: > > > > struct wake_irq { > > struct device *dev; > > int irq; > > irq_handler_t handler; > > }; > > > > Then, add a struct wake_irq pointer to struct dev_pm_info *and* to > > struct wakeup_source. Next, make dev_pm_request_wake_irq() allocate the > > structure and request the interrupt and only set the pointer to it from > > struct dev_pm_info *along* *with* power.can_wakeup if all that was > > successful. > > > > For devices that use their own IO IRQ for wakeup, we can add something > > like dev_pm_set_wake_irq() that will work analogously, but without requesting > > the interrupt. It will just set the dev and irq members of struct wake_irq > > and point struct dev_pm_info to it and set its power.can_wakeup flag. > > > > Then, device_wakeup_enable() will be able to see that the device has a > > wakeup IRQ and it may then point its own struct wake_irq pointer to that. > > The core may then use that pointer to trigger enable_irq_wake() for the > > IRQ in question and it will cover the devices that don't need separate > > wakeup interrupts too. > > > > Does that make sense to you? > > Can we back up a little? What is the basic problem the two of you are > trying to solve? Essentially, code duplication between drivers that all need to do the same thing which can be moved to the core quite easily. 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists