linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 06/13] ACPI: resources: Add wake_capable parameter to acpi_dev_irq

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: <YzcqdTxLMF5028yz@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Sep 2022 20:42:13 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        Raul Rangel <rrangel@...omium.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-input <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
        Tim Van Patten <timvp@...gle.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "jingle.wu" <jingle.wu@....com.tw>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@....com>, Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/13] ACPI: resources: Add wake_capable parameter to
 acpi_dev_irq_flags

On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 07:13:37PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 1:22 AM Dmitry Torokhov
> <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> wrote:

...

> I think that patches [5-8/13] from this series are significant
> framework changes, so it would make sense to route them via the ACPI
> tree.
> 
> If this is fine with everybody, I will queue them up for merging into
> 6.1 (probably in the second half of the upcoming merge window).

I believe it's fine from GPIO ACPI perspective (there shouldn't be conflict,
but if you wish you always may take this PR [1] to your tree (it's already in
GPIO tree pending v6.1), it may be considered as immutable tag.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-gpio/Yym%2Fj+Y9MBOIhWtK@black.fi.intel.com/

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko