netdev - Re: [PATCH v3] brcmfmac: avoid duplicated suspend/resume operation

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: <54E01209.7010300@erley.org>
Date:	Sat, 14 Feb 2015 21:27:05 -0600
From:	Pat Erley <pat-lkml@...ey.org>
To:	"Fu, Zhonghui" <zhonghui.fu@...ux.intel.com>,
	Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>, brudley@...adcom.com,
	Arend van Spriel <arend@...adcom.com>,
	Franky Lin <frankyl@...adcom.com>, meuleman@...adcom.com,
	linville@...driver.com, pieterpg@...adcom.com, hdegoede@...hat.com,
	wens@...e.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	brcm80211-dev-list@...adcom.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] brcmfmac: avoid duplicated suspend/resume operation

On 02/14/2015 08:40 PM, Fu, Zhonghui wrote:
>
> Any comments to this patch? Can it be accepted?
>
> Thanks,
> Zhonghui
>
> On 2015/2/12 11:26, Fu, Zhonghui wrote:
>>  From a05d35ab334c20970c236fb971dae88810078c88 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Fu Zhonghui <zhonghui.fu@...ux.intel.com>
>> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:49:35 +0800
>> Subject: [PATCH v3] brcmfmac: avoid duplicated suspend/resume operation
>>
>> WiFi chip has 2 SDIO functions, and PM core will trigger
>> twice suspend/resume operations for one WiFi chip to do
>> the same things. This patch avoid this case.
>>
>> Acked-by: Arend van Spriel <arend@...adcom.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Fu Zhonghui <zhonghui.fu@...ux.intel.com>
>> ---
>> Changes in v3:
>> - Rebase to wireless-drivers-next/master branch
>>
>>   drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/bcmsdh.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/bcmsdh.c b/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/bcmsdh.c
>> index 7944224..b8832a7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/bcmsdh.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/bcmsdh.c
>> @@ -1117,9 +1117,13 @@ static int brcmf_ops_sdio_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>   	struct brcmf_bus *bus_if;
>>   	struct brcmf_sdio_dev *sdiodev;
>>   	mmc_pm_flag_t sdio_flags;
>> +	struct sdio_func *func = dev_to_sdio_func(dev);
>>
>>   	brcmf_dbg(SDIO, "Enter\n");
>>
>> +	if (func->num == 2)
>> +		return 0;
>> +

Should it be >= 2 instead of == 2 so that if, in the future, a 3+
SDIO function chip comes out, it's already handled?  Not that that
should hold up the patch or anything, just a curiosity.

>>   	bus_if = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>   	sdiodev = bus_if->bus_priv.sdio;
>>
>> @@ -1148,9 +1152,16 @@ static int brcmf_ops_sdio_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>   static int brcmf_ops_sdio_resume(struct device *dev)
>>   {
>>   	struct brcmf_bus *bus_if = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>> -	struct brcmf_sdio_dev *sdiodev = bus_if->bus_priv.sdio;
>> +	struct brcmf_sdio_dev *sdiodev;
>> +	struct sdio_func *func = dev_to_sdio_func(dev);
>>
>>   	brcmf_dbg(SDIO, "Enter\n");
>> +
>> +	if (func->num == 2)
>> +		return 0;
>> +
>> +	sdiodev = bus_if->bus_priv.sdio;
>> +
>>   	if (sdiodev->pdata && sdiodev->pdata->oob_irq_supported)
>>   		disable_irq_wake(sdiodev->pdata->oob_irq_nr);
>>   	brcmf_sdio_wd_timer(sdiodev->bus, BRCMF_WD_POLL_MS);
>> -- 1.9.1
>>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html