linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] PCI: ACPI: Get rid of struct 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]

Message-ID: <20210929150737.GA766999@bhelgaas>
Date:   Wed, 29 Sep 2021 10:07:37 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
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>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ferry Toth <fntoth@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] PCI: ACPI: Get rid of struct pci_platform_pm_ops
 and clean up code

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 02:00:59PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 1:28 AM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > [+cc Ferry]
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 08:52:19PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > As explained in the changelog of patch [2/7], using struct pci_platform_pm_ops
> > > for ACPI is not particularly beneficial, so it is better to get rid of it and
> > > call the functions pointed to by it directly from the PCI core.
> > >
> > > However, struct pci_platform_pm_ops is also used by the Intel MID support code,
> > > but it is actually better to call the MID PM function directly from the PCI
> > > core either, which is done in patch [1/7].
> > >
> > > After these changes, patch [3/7] removes struct pci_platform_pm_ops and the
> > > rest is just cleanups and some code consolidation on top of that.
> >
> > I like these a lot.  Not sure exactly where everything is after the
> > conversation with Ferry.
> 
> It's mostly OK, the problem was in one of the "tail" patches that was
> not rebased properly.
> 
> There will be a follow-up series to test for Ferry (later today).
> 
> >  Let me know if I should be doing anything.
> 
> I'm going to take this lot if that's not a problem.  If I need
> anything from you, I'll let you know.

Sounds good, thanks, Rafael!

Bjorn