linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2] ACPI / sleep: EC-based wakeup from suspend-to-idle on recent systems

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: <745fa37f0ad6477e84131740828550f0@ausx13mpc120.AMER.DELL.COM>
Date:   Fri, 23 Jun 2017 18:01:15 +0000
From:   <Mario.Limonciello@...l.com>
To:     <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>, <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        <dvhart@...radead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>, <tom@...shoeco.com>,
        <jerome.debretagne@...il.com>, <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        <lv.zheng@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] ACPI / sleep: EC-based wakeup from suspend-to-idle on
 recent systems

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Srinivas Pandruvada [mailto:srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 11:06 AM
> To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@...l.com>; rjw@...ysocki.net; linux-
> acpi@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org; andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com;
> dvhart@...radead.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com; tom@...shoeco.com;
> jerome.debretagne@...il.com; torvalds@...ux-foundation.org;
> lv.zheng@...el.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI / sleep: EC-based wakeup from suspend-to-idle on
> recent systems
> 
> On Fri, 2017-06-23 at 15:37 +0000, Mario.Limonciello@...l.com wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > >
> > > +#define ACPI_LPS0_SCREEN_ON	4
> > > +#define ACPI_LPS0_ENTRY		5
> > > +#define ACPI_LPS0_EXIT		6
> > The spec you shared also defines device constraints (function 1). It
> > would be very
> > useful if these constraints  could be parsed and compared against the
> > actual power
> > states of devices on the system at least for debugging purposes.  I'm
> > not sure if you
> > already had a plan for that in a future series.
> >
> For debug purpose, I have worked on a patch to dump the constraint
> table in debugfs. But in the freeze path whether we meet the
> constraints or not will not make any difference, other than for just
> debugging.
> 
> Thanks,
> Srinivas

Right that was what I thought would be most interesting.  You can potentially
output to syslog as a last step going down what isn't in the right state to match
the constraint table.