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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 23 Sep 2021 15:35:05 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>
To:     Ferry Toth <>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
        Linux PCI <>,
        Linux ACPI <>,
        LKML <>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <>,
        Andy Shevchenko <>,
        Mika Westerberg <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] PCI: ACPI: PM: Do not use pci_platform_pm_ops for ACPI

On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 3:26 PM Ferry Toth <> wrote:
> Hi,
> Op 23-09-2021 om 13:30 schreef Rafael J. Wysocki:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 11:31 PM Ferry Toth <> wrote:
> Hi,
> Op 20-09-2021 om 21:17 schreef Rafael J. Wysocki:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <>
> 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 <>
> ---
> 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
> 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.

Thank you!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists