linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/2] PM / suspend: Add platform_suspend_target

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: <1529148.KHlxNOSRLV@aspire.rjw.lan>
Date:   Sun, 16 Jul 2017 01:29:57 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        linux-pm <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thibaud Cornic <thibaud_cornic@...madesigns.com>,
        JB <jb_lescher@...madesigns.com>, Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] PM / suspend: Add platform_suspend_target_state()

On Saturday, July 15, 2017 06:46:26 PM Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > > I had an idea of using an enum type encompassing all of the power states
> > > > defined for various platforms and serving both as a registry (to ensure the
> > > > uniqueness of the values assigned to the states) and a common ground
> > > > between platforms and drivers.
> > > > 
> > > > Something like:
> > > > 
> > > > enum platform_target_state {
> > > > 	PLATFORM_STATE_UNKNOWN = -1,
> > > > 	PLATFORM_STATE_WORKING = 0,
> > > > 	PLATFORM_STATE_ACPI_S1,
> > > > 	PLATFORM_STATE_ACPI_S2,
> > > > 	PLATFORM_STATE_ACPI_S3,
> > > > 	PLATFORM_STATE_MY_BOARD_1_GATE_CLOCKS,
> > > > 	PLATFORM_STATE_MY_BOARD_1_GATE_POWER,
> > > > 	PLATFORM_STATE_ANOTHER_BOARD_DO_CRAZY_STUFF,
> > > > 	...
> > > > };
> > > > 
> > > > and define ->target_state to return a value of this type.
> > > > 
> > > > Then, if a driver sees one of these and recognizes that value, it should
> > > > know exactly what to do.
> > > 
> > > Remind me why this is good idea?
> > 
> > Because there are drivers that need to do specific things during
> > suspend on a specific board when it goes into a specific state as a
> > whole.
> 
> We have seen driver that cares about voltage to his device being
> lost. That's reasonable.
> 
> Inquiring what the platform target state is... is not.

So why exactly isn't it reasonable?

Please use technical arguments.  Saying that something is wrong without
explaining the problem you see with it isn't particulatly useful in technical
discussions.

Thanks,
Rafael