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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 22:32:39 +0200 From: Ferry Toth <fntoth@...il.com> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.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> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] PCI: ACPI: PM: Do not use pci_platform_pm_ops for ACPI Hi Op 23-09-2021 om 15:51 schreef Ferry Toth: > Repost (with formatting removed, sorry for the noise) > Op 23-09-2021 om 13:30 schreef Rafael J. Wysocki: >> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 11:31 PM Ferry Toth<fntoth@...il.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> Op 20-09-2021 om 21:17 schreef Rafael J. Wysocki: >>>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki<rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com> >>>> >>>> Using struct pci_platform_pm_ops for ACPI adds unnecessary >>>> indirection to the interactions between the PCI core and ACPI PM, >>>> which is also subject to retpolines. >>>> >>>> Moreover, it is not particularly clear from the current code that, >>>> as far as PCI PM is concerned, "platform" really means just ACPI >>>> except for the special casess when Intel MID PCI PM is used or when >>>> ACPI support is disabled (through the kernel config or command line, >>>> or because there are no usable ACPI tables on the system). >>>> >>>> To address the above, rework the PCI PM code to invoke ACPI PM >>>> functions directly as needed and drop the acpi_pci_platform_pm >>>> object that is not necessary any more. >>>> >>>> Accordingly, update some of the ACPI PM functions in question to do >>>> extra checks in case the ACPI support is disabled (which previously >>>> was taken care of by avoiding to set the pci_platform_ops pointer >>>> in those cases). >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki<rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> v1 -> v2: >>>> * Rebase on top of the new [1/7] and move dropping struct >>>> pci_platform_pm_ops to a separate patch. >>> I wanted to test this series on 5.15-rc2 but this patch 2/7 doesn't >>> apply (after 1/7 applied). Should I apply this on another tree? >> This is on top of >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-acpi/patch/2793105.e9J7NaK4W3@kreacher/ >> >> which is not yet in any tree. >> >> Sorry for the confusion. > No problem at all. If I can I will try to report back tonight. Else, > will be delayed 2 due to a short break. With those 3 extra patches followed by 7 from this series it builds. But on boot I get: dwc3 dwc3.0.auto: this is not a DesignWare USB3 DRD Core Then after this it reboots. Nothing in the logs. Nothing else on console, I guess something goes wrong early. I tried both in host / device mode - no change. Normally in host mode I have: usb usb1: New USB device found, idVendor=1d6b, idProduct=0002, bcdDevice= 5.14 Only ref to dwc3 is: tusb1210 dwc3.0.auto.ulpi: using ACPI for GPIO lookup / using lookup tables for GPIO lookup / No GPIO consumer cs found
Powered by blists - more mailing lists