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: <20170716182235.GB14461@amd>
Date:   Sun, 16 Jul 2017 20:22:35 +0200
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
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()

Hi!

> > > 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.
> > 
> > Deep in your heart, you should know that having enum listing all the platforms linux
> > runs on is a very bad idea.
> 
> Even so, if I'm unable to explain to people why this is a bad idea in technical
> terms, that doesn't mean too much.

I could say something O(#drivers * #platforms) vs. O(#drivers +
#platforms) lines of code -- but I thought it was obvious...?

> > Anyway, there are better solutions, regulator framework already knows if given rail
> > will be powered off or not, and their driver already knows if they are going
> > suspend/standby. They just need to use existing interfaces.
> 
> So they need to know what has been passed to suspend_devices_and_enter()
> anyway and currently there's no interface for that.  That actually is the source
> of the whole issue.

Yep, I don't like that, but I guess we should give drivers enough
information to ask regulator framework.

Best regards,
								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)