linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC 3/6] drivers: firmware: psci: Implement shallow suspend mode

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: <a2e09969-3a67-6947-4dd8-2a153d1f48e7@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Feb 2017 14:35:37 +0000
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@...aro.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 3/6] drivers: firmware: psci: Implement shallow
 suspend mode



On 22/02/17 13:47, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Sudeep,
> 
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:

[...]

>>
>> IIUC, it's not implemented today. I can't talk about future ;), but your
> 
> Good, so there's no need for the DT property, and drivers/firmware/psci.c
> should aways call do_cpu_idle() instead of PSCI SYSTEM_SUSPEND if any
> other wake-up sources are configured?
> 

No.

> That follows the principle of least surprise: it doesn't leave the user with
> a system that won't wake up the way he configured it to wake up.
> 

But he can still wake up with the "switch" so there's no surprise. He
just need to better understand his system before playing with it ;)

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep