linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 2/7] i2c: Allow an ACPI driver to manage the device's power state during probe

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: <20210210204615.GC3@paasikivi.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 Feb 2021 22:46:15 +0200
From:   Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        rajmohan.mani@...el.com, Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Bingbu Cao <bingbu.cao@...el.com>,
        Chiranjeevi Rapolu <chiranjeevi.rapolu@...el.com>,
        Hyungwoo Yang <hyungwoo.yang@...el.com>,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 2/7] i2c: Allow an ACPI driver to manage the device's
 power state during probe

Hi Wolfram,

On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 10:04:10PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
> > + * @I2C_DRV_FL_ALLOW_LOW_POWER_PROBE: Let the ACPI driver manage the device's
> > + *				      power state during probe and remove
> 
> Well, for the functional change, I am happy if the ACPI guys are happy.
> The only minor nit for me would be removing the "_FL" snipplet from the
> name of the define because I think it is clear enough that this is a
> flag. If you need to resend anyhow, maybe it is worth a thought. It is

I'll remove _FL for v11.

> not a big issue, so anyway:
> 
> Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>

Thank you!

> 
> because I assume this will go in via the ACPI tree?

I think so, yes, if no-one has objections. Most of the changes are for ACPI
framework and docs.

-- 
Kind regards,

Sakari Ailus