linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] spi: spi-topcliff-pch: use generic power management

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:   Fri, 24 Jul 2020 20:46:01 +0530
From:   Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40@...il.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn@...gaas.com>,
        Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhav.varodek@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] spi: spi-topcliff-pch: use generic power management

On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 01:51:49PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 7:31 PM Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Drivers using legacy PM have to manage PCI states and device's PM states
> > themselves. They also need to take care of configuration registers.
> >
> > With improved and powerful support of generic PM, PCI Core takes care of
> > above mentioned, device-independent, jobs.
> >
> > This driver makes use of PCI helper functions like
> > pci_save/restore_state(), pci_enable/disable_device(), pci_enable_wake()
> > and pci_set_power_state() to do required operations. In generic mode, they
> > are no longer needed.
> >
> > Change function parameter in both .suspend() and .resume() to
> > "struct device*" type. Use dev_get_drvdata() to get drv data.
> 
> > Compile-tested only.
> 
> Yeah...
> 
> ...
> 
> > +static int __maybe_unused pch_spi_suspend(struct device *dev)
> >  {
> > +       struct pch_pd_dev_save *pd_dev_save = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> >
> > +       dev_dbg(dev, "%s ENTRY\n", __func__);
> >
> >         pd_dev_save->board_dat->suspend_sts = true;
> >
> > +       return 0;
> >  }
> >
> > +static int __maybe_unused pch_spi_resume(struct device *dev)
> >  {
> > +       struct pch_pd_dev_save *pd_dev_save = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> >
> > +       dev_dbg(dev, "%s ENTRY\n", __func__);
> >
> 
> > +       device_wakeup_disable(dev);
> 
> Here I left a result. Care to explain (and perhaps send a follow up
> fix) where is the counterpart to this call?
> 
Hello Andy,
I didn't quite understand what you are trying to point at. And the result part.

Yes, it seem I forgot to put device_wakeup_disable() in .suspend() when I
removed pci_enable_wake(pdev, PCI_D3hot, 0); from there. It doesn't seem that
.suspend() wants to enable-wake the device as the bool value passed to
pci_enable_wake() is zero.

Am I missing something else?

Thanks
Vaibhav Gupta
> > +       /* set suspend status to false */
> > +       pd_dev_save->board_dat->suspend_sts = false;
> 
> > +       return 0;
> >  }
> 
> 
> -- 
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko