linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Documentation: PM: Drop pme

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: <20220608222922.GA429328@bhelgaas>
Date:   Wed, 8 Jun 2022 17:29:22 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:     Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        "open list:SUSPEND TO RAM" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: PM: Drop pme_interrupt reference

On Thu, Jun 02, 2022 at 11:33:30AM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> `pme_interrupt` was dropped from `struct pci_dev` as part of commit
> 8370c2dc4c7b ("PCI / PM: Drop pme_interrupt flag from struct pci_dev"),
> but the Documentation still includes this member.
> 
> Remove it from the documentation as well and update it to have the missing
> `pme_poll` member instead.
> 
> Fixes: 8370c2dc4c7b ("PCI / PM: Drop pme_interrupt flag from struct pci_dev")
> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
> ---
>  Documentation/power/pci.rst | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/power/pci.rst b/Documentation/power/pci.rst
> index b04fb18cc4e2..a125544b4cb6 100644
> --- a/Documentation/power/pci.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/power/pci.rst
> @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ that these callbacks operate on::
>  					   configuration space */
>  	unsigned int	pme_support:5;	/* Bitmask of states from which PME#
>  					   can be generated */
> -	unsigned int	pme_interrupt:1;/* Is native PCIe PME signaling used? */
> +	unsigned int	pme_poll:1;	/* Poll device's PME status bit */
>  	unsigned int	d1_support:1;	/* Low power state D1 is supported */
>  	unsigned int	d2_support:1;	/* Low power state D2 is supported */
>  	unsigned int	no_d1d2:1;	/* D1 and D2 are forbidden */

I'm OK with this patch if Rafael wants to take it.

But I'm not sure how much value this section of the doc really adds.
The doc basically says "the PCI PM callbacks operate on several of
these fields of the struct pci_dev" and goes on to quote part of the
struct pci_dev.

But "pm_cap" is the only one of those fields that is mentioned
elsewhere in the doc, and that one is only incidental.

For example, is it really useful to say "the PCI PM callbacks use
pci_dev.pme_poll" without any other details about pme_poll?

I think I would consider just removing everything from "The structure
representing a PCI device ..." to the end of the section, i.e., lines
308-329 at [1].

[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/power/pci.rst?id=v5.18#n308