linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] PCI: PM: x86: Drop Intel MID PCI PM support

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:   Tue, 21 Sep 2021 15:16:17 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        x86 Maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] PCI: PM: x86: Drop Intel MID PCI PM support

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 1:57 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 10:32 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 9:01 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:

...

> > > I am going to post patches removing the rest of MID support from arch/x86/
> > > and elsewhere, but that is still quite a bit of stuff and I don't want this
> > > simple PCI PM series to depend on that work.
> >
> > This is still being used by MID with ACPI assisted (*) support.
> > Hence, not ack.
> >
> > *) ACPI layer is provided by U-Boot and can't fulfill all possible
> > features that ACPI may use in the Linux kernel.
>
> OK, good to know.
>
> I'm not sure how this PCI PM stuff works with ACPI.

It doesn't that is the point. The PCI is very interesting there and
what I meant is that the ACPI implementation I have provided via
U-Boot does not cover these. If you have any hints/ideas how it may be
handled, I am all ears!

> It looks like
> this relies on a specific ordering of arch_initcall() calls for
> correctness which is sort of fragile.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko