linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] PCI: ACPI: PM: Do not use pci_platform_pm

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:   Fri, 24 Sep 2021 16:52:21 +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 24-09-2021 om 14:02 schreef Rafael J. Wysocki:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:32 PM Ferry Toth <fntoth@...il.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> It appears so.
>
> Can you please try just the 3 extra patches this series is on top of?
> The problem is more likely to be located in one of them.
Yes, I hope to be able to that this evening.