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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 4 Jan 2021 21:32:48 +0100
From:   Heiner Kallweit <>
To:     Lukas Wunner <>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <>,
        Mika Westerberg <>,
        Kai Heng Feng <>,
        "" <>,
        Linux PM <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>
Subject: Re: Time to re-enable Runtime PM per default for PCI devcies?

On 04.01.2021 18:39, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 10:38:12AM +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> On 31.12.2020 05:07, Lukas Wunner wrote:
>>> FWIW, if platform_pci_power_manageable() returns true, it can probably
>>> be assumed that allowing runtime PM by default is okay.  So as a first
>>> step, you may want to call that instead of adding a new callback.
>> I don't think that's sufficient. Most likely all the broken old systems
>> return true for platform_pci_power_manageable().
> platform_pci_power_manageable() is not a global flag, but rather
> a per-device flag whether the platform is capable of power-managing
> that device.  E.g. for the ACPI platform, it indicates that objects
> such as _PS0 or _PS3 are present in the device's namespace.
> My point is that if the platform can power-manage a device,
> then it ought to be safe to enable runtime PM by default for it.
Not sure about that. Just that the BIOS claims it can power-manage
the device, doesn't rule out that it's broken and fails to do so.

> If you insist on a "big hammer" approach by turning on runtime PM
> by default for everything, you risk regressions.  You can avoid
> that by going for a smart approach which enables runtime PM in
> cases when it's safe.
> Thanks,
> Lukas

Powered by blists - more mailing lists