linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] PM / Wakeirq: Add automated device wake IRQ handling

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: <20150514175147.GN15563@atomide.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 May 2015 10:51:47 -0700
From:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Andreas Fenkart <afenkart@...il.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	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-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] PM / Wakeirq: Add automated device wake IRQ handling

* Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com> [150514 09:30]:
> * Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com> [150514 09:12]:
>  
> > > int dev_pm_request_wake_irq_managed(struct device *dev, int irq);
> > 
> > I don't get this. Would this request with devm_ while the former
> > wouldn't use devm_ ?
> 
> Typo :) Both can be devm no problem.
...

> > > The life cycle of the request and free of the wake irq is not the
> > > same as the life cycle of the device driver. For example, serial
> > > drivers can request interrupts on startup and free them on shutdown.
> > 
> > fair enough, but then we start to consider the benefits of using
> > devm_ IRQ :-)
> 
> Hmm probably the extra checks do not hurt there either.

We should keep the PM related functions called dev_pm_*, using
devm_pm_* just gets hard to pronounce.. So yeah I too am thinking
just not using devm here at all as the consumer drivers are not
allocating anything.

Regards,

Tony
--
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/