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]
Date:   Wed, 6 Dec 2017 16:29:56 -0800
From:   Brian Norris <>
To:     Tony Lindgren <>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
        Jeffy Chen <>,,,,,,,, Len Brown <>
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 <> [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.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists