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:	Mon, 18 Jan 2016 15:23:18 +0000
From:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>,
	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver-core: platform: automatically mark wakeup devices

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 17, 2016 06:11:38 PM Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> When probing platform drivers let's check if corresponding devices have
>> "wakeup-source" property defined (either in device tree, ACPI, or static
>> platform properties) and automatically enable such devices as wakeup
>> sources for the system. This will help us standardize on the name for this
>> property and reduce amount of boilerplate code in the drivers.
>
> ACPI has other ways of telling the OS that the device is wakeup-capable,
> but I guess the property in question can be used too (as long as it is
> consistent with the other methods).
>

Just curious to know what you mean when you say this property can also
be used with ACPI. Do you mean we could use "wakeup-source" DSD ?

If so, won't that go against rule for DSD (i.e we *should not* bypass the
existing mechanisms defined by the ACPI, e.g. _SxW in this case)

--
Regards,
Sudeep

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ