linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v11 4/5] PCI / PM: Add support for the PCIe WAKE# signal for OF

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: <20171229171639.GJ3875@atomide.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:16:39 -0800
From:   Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     JeffyChen <jeffy.chen@...k-chips.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
        Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
        Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v11 4/5] PCI / PM: Add support for the PCIe WAKE#
 signal for OF

* Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> [171228 17:46]:
> 
> To be precise, it is not quite possible to figure out which WAKE#
> triggered, if they are sharing the line, without looking into the
> config spaces of the devices below the switch.  The switch is not
> expected to do that AFAICS.  It only generates a PME message meaning
> "wakeup is being signaled somewhere below" and the PME driver that
> handles the Root Port receiving it should look at the PME Status bits
> of the devices below the switch (the pme.c driver does that IIRC or at
> least it should do that ;-)).
> 
> Still, the handling of WAKE# doesn't need to cover this case AFAICS.

OK makes sense now.

Regards,

Tony