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: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 09:42:54 +0200 From: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com> To: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com> Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mfd: intel-lpss: Avoid resuming runtime-suspended lpss unnecessarily On Wed, 2016-09-28 at 11:28 +0800, Chen Yu wrote: > So first try is to use pm_request_resume() instead, to make the > runtime > resume process asynchronously. Unfortunately the asynchronous runtime > resume relies on pm_wq, which is freezed at early stage. So we choose > another method, that is to avoid resuming runtime-suspended devices, > if they are already runtime suspended. This is safe because for LPSS > driver, the runtime suspend and system suspend are of the same > hook - i.e., intel_lpss_suspend(). And moreover, this device is > neither runtime wakeup source nor system wakeup source. I agree with the reasoning but I don't see the specificity to LPSS. Shouldn't this go into the core? Regards Oliver
Powered by blists - more mailing lists