linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] hwmon: (core) Add pm ops to hwmon class

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 2 Nov 2018 19:59:06 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>
Cc:     jdelvare@...e.com, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] hwmon: (core) Add pm ops to hwmon class

On 11/2/18 12:48 PM, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 10:54:35AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> 
>>> Actually, pm_runtime core also scans a class-level pm pointer:
>>>           else if (dev->class && dev->class->pm)
>>>                    ops = dev->class->pm;
>>>
>>> This means that hwmon class in the hwmon core could actually
>>> have its own generic pm callbacks so that a registered driver
>>> would have the capability to link their own callbacks to the
>>> hwmon core's.
>>>
>>> So this patch adds a pm pointer to the hwmon class with some
>>> generic pm callbacks of system suspend/resume and pm_runtime
>>> suspend/resume, and also allows hwmon drivers to pass valid
>>> pm pointers through _with_info API when registering devices.
>>>
>>
>> Just to give an update: I am not happy with having to add hwmon
>> specific pm callbacks. That doesn't look right to me. I'll have
>> to spend time figuring out how other virtual devices handle this
>> situation. Unfortunately, time is always scarce, so this will likely
>> take a while.
> 
> That's okay. Would it be possible then for me to add PM runtime
> functions just in ina3221, without touching hwmon core? It will
> belong to the I2C device, not hwmon device any more.
> 

If that works, sure. We can always add generic support later.

Guenter

>> Also, please note that I won't accept function macros. I understand
>> that are used a lot, especially in older hwmon drivers, but they just
>> make the code more difficult to read and often add unnecessary code.
> 
> Okay. Will be careful to use them in future hwmon patches.
> 
> Thanks
> Nicolin
>