linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v10 6/7] PCI / PM: Move acpi wakeup code to pci core

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20171207002955.GA40447@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Dec 2017 16:29:56 -0800
From:   Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
To:     Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@...k-chips.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, shawn.lin@...k-chips.com,
        dianders@...omium.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v10 6/7] PCI / PM: Move acpi wakeup code to pci core

On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 04:17:54PM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org> [171206 19:36]:
> > By the way, it seems pretty ambiguous how we want to handle things like
> > (a) multiple devices sharing the same WAKE#
> > (b) systems where a slot is swappable
> > 
> > For (a), the main problem is that if we have to repeat the interrupt
> > definition in multiple devices, then we have to deal with something like
> > IRQF_SHARED. That can be done, but it makes it much harder to use the
> > dedicated wakeirq helpers.
> 
> This will get messy, let's not go there :) That is unless the hardware
> really has a single interrupt wired to multiple devices. And in that
> case almost certainly a custom interrupt handler is needed.

As Rafael mentioned, the spec doesn't clearly delineate a required
hierarchy to the WAKE# pin, and it's certainly possible to share it. I'm
fine dodging that question for now, and only writing said custom
interrupt handler if/when needed.

But device tree bindings are "forever", so it seems reasonable to at
least agree how it should be defined.

Brian