linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: power: Introduce suspend states supported properties

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]

Date:   Wed, 12 Sep 2018 12:37:13 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Keerthy <j-keerthy@...com>, mark.rutland@....com,
        robh+dt@...nel.org
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
        t-kristo@...com, tony@...mide.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: power: Introduce suspend states supported
 properties



On 12/09/18 12:19, Keerthy wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wednesday 12 September 2018 04:32 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/09/18 05:09, Keerthy wrote:
>>> Introuduce linux generic suspend states supported properties.
>>> It is convenient for the generic suspend path to have
>>> the knowledge of the suspend states supported based on the
>>> device tree properties based on which it can either be suspended
>>> or safely bailed out of suspend if none of the suspend states
>>> are supported.
>>>
>>
>> NACK for any bindings that are linux specific. The suspend feature is so
>> platform dependent that I see no need for generic Linux bindings for the
>> same.
> 
> suspend to mem and suspend to disk are pretty generic states and i agree
> implementation is platform dependent so why not have properties that
> convey if they are supported?
> 

We already have power domains and idle states for that. If you need to
restrict few states on some platform for whatever reasons, just disable
those states. I don't see the need to add any more bindings for the same.

> Is the disagreement over making the properties being linux specific?
> 

Yes.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep