linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] PCI: rockchip: Add support for pcie wake irq

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: <599CE56D.3060000@rock-chips.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:16:13 +0800
From:   jeffy <jeffy.chen@...k-chips.com>
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
CC:     Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        bhelgaas@...gle.com, shawn.lin@...k-chips.com,
        dianders@...omium.org, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] PCI: rockchip: Add support for pcie wake irq

Hi Brian,

On 08/23/2017 09:57 AM, Brian Norris wrote:
> Hi Jeffy,
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:32:39AM +0800, Jeffy Chen wrote:
>> and for eage irq, maybe we should enable it right after(or before)
>> the driver activate wake function(for example activate WOWLAN or
>> WOLAN), otherwise would it be possible to miss some irqs(triggered
>> before we actually enable the wake irq)?
>
> I already mentioned this: for the PCI case, the specification explicitly
> says that the WAKE# pin must remain asserted until the system wakes and
> resets the link. So we don't have this problem.
Sorry, i means for other use cases of wakeirq, for example sdio wifi

>
> But it is probably still useful to make sure there's a well-defined
> point at which these interrupts are armed, so that if a device driver
> does care, it can account for that. Just before suspend_noirq (as it is
> today) is probably fine, so if there's some device-level handling that
> needs to happen before we get to suspend (but after the wakeirq is
> armed), it can go in the device or bus {suspend,resume}_noirq callbacks.

Yes, then we may need to handle "disable level irq" job in the irq 
handler(or runtime resume callback as current wakeirq API suggested) for 
irqs received before suspend devices irqs.
>
> Brian
>
>
>