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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <7892467b-c2de-c62-e977-62761dc5cbb@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2022 12:51:23 +0300 (EEST) From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com> To: Kumaravel Thiagarajan <kumaravel.thiagarajan@...rochip.com> cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>, andy.shevchenko@...il.com, u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de, johan@...nel.org, wander@...hat.com, etremblay@...tech-controls.com, macro@...am.me.uk, geert+renesas@...der.be, jk@...abs.org, phil.edworthy@...esas.com, Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-serial <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 tty-next 3/3] 8250: microchip: pci1xxxx: Add power management functions to quad-uart driver. On Sat, 1 Oct 2022, Kumaravel Thiagarajan wrote: > pci1xxxx's quad-uart function has the capability to wake up the host from > suspend state. Enable wakeup before entering into suspend and disable > wakeup on resume. > > Signed-off-by: Kumaravel Thiagarajan <kumaravel.thiagarajan@...rochip.com> > --- > Changes in v2: > - Use DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS instead of SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS. > - Use pm_sleep_ptr instead of CONFIG_PM_SLEEP. > - Change the return data type of pci1xxxx_port_suspend to bool from int. > --- > drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_pci1xxxx.c | 112 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 112 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_pci1xxxx.c b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_pci1xxxx.c > index 999e5a284266..0a0459f66177 100644 > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_pci1xxxx.c > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_pci1xxxx.c > @@ -352,6 +352,112 @@ static void pci1xxxx_irq_assign(struct pci1xxxx_8250 *priv, > } > } > > +static bool pci1xxxx_port_suspend(int line) > +{ > + struct uart_8250_port *up = serial8250_get_port(line); > + struct uart_port *port = &up->port; > + unsigned long flags; > + u8 wakeup_mask; > + bool ret = false; > + > + if (port->suspended == 0 && port->dev) { > + wakeup_mask = readb(up->port.membase + UART_WAKE_MASK_REG); > + > + spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); > + port->mctrl &= ~TIOCM_OUT2; > + port->ops->set_mctrl(port, port->mctrl); > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); > + > + if ((wakeup_mask & UART_WAKE_SRCS) != UART_WAKE_SRCS) > + ret = true; > + } > + > + writeb(UART_WAKE_SRCS, port->membase + UART_WAKE_REG); > + > + return ret; > +} > + > +static void pci1xxxx_port_resume(int line) > +{ > + struct uart_8250_port *up = serial8250_get_port(line); > + struct uart_port *port = &up->port; > + unsigned long flags; > + > + writeb(UART_WAKE_SRCS, port->membase + UART_WAKE_REG); > + > + if (port->suspended == 0) { Is this check the right way around? > + spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); > + port->mctrl |= TIOCM_OUT2; > + port->ops->set_mctrl(port, port->mctrl); > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); > + } > +} > + > +static int pci1xxxx_suspend(struct device *dev) > +{ > + struct pci1xxxx_8250 *priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > + struct pci_dev *pcidev = to_pci_dev(dev); > + unsigned int data; > + void __iomem *p; > + bool wakeup = false; > + int i; > + > + for (i = 0; i < priv->nr; i++) { > + if (priv->line[i] >= 0) { > + serial8250_suspend_port(priv->line[i]); > + wakeup |= pci1xxxx_port_suspend(priv->line[i]); So first serial8250_suspend_port() calls into uart_suspend_port() that sets port->suspended to 1, then pci1xxxx_port_suspend() checks if it's 0. Is this intentional? -- i.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists