linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 6/6] platform/chrome: cros_ec: Use PM subsystem to manage wakeirq

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:   Thu, 14 Dec 2023 11:09:41 +0800
From:   Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>
To:     Mark Hasemeyer <markhas@...omium.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Raul Rangel <rrangel@...omium.org>,
        Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
        Bhanu Prakash Maiya <bhanumaiya@...omium.org>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@...omium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
        Prashant Malani <pmalani@...omium.org>,
        Rob Barnes <robbarnes@...gle.com>,
        chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 6/6] platform/chrome: cros_ec: Use PM subsystem to
 manage wakeirq

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 11:00:24AM -0700, Mark Hasemeyer wrote:
> The cros ec driver is manually managing the wake irq by calling
> enable_irq_wake/disable_irq_wake during suspend/resume.
> 
> Modify the driver to use the power management subsystem to manage the
> wakeirq.
> 
> The wake capability of the interrupt is provided by the underlying
> firmware/device tree. Some Chromebooks rely solely on the ec_sync pin to
> wake the AP but they do not specify the interrupt as wake capable in the
> ACPI _CRS or device tree. For LPC/ACPI based systems a DMI quirk is
> introduced listing boards whose firmware should not be trusted to
> provide correct wake capable values.
> 
> The irq wake logic was added on an interface basis (lpc, spi, uart) as
> opposed to adding it to cros_ec.c because the i2c subsystem already does
> this work on our behalf.

It looks to me the patch combines multiple changes.  Please separate them into
smaller pieces for reviewing easier.

Another confusing about the patch subject: "6/6"?  Is it a series?  I don't
see the cover letter.