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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 23 Sep 2021 15:51:13 +0200
From:   Ferry Toth <>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>
Cc:     "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

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<>  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.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists