Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] driver core: Functional dependencies tracking support

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 02:54:56PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Lukas Wunner <lu...@wunner.de> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 08:26:52AM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > > > From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.

Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] driver core: Functional dependencies tracking support

Hi Marek, On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 08:26:52AM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" > > Currently, there is a problem with handling cases where functional > dependencies between devices are involved. > > What I mean by a "functional dependency"

Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] driver core: Functional dependencies tracking support

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 12:51:31AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 05:23:40 PM Lukas Wunner wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 02:52:42PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 08:24:50 AM Lukas Wunner wrote: > >

Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] driver core: Functional dependencies tracking support

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 02:33:18AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, June 17, 2016 04:07:38 PM Lukas Wunner wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 02:54:56PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Lukas Wunner <lu...@wunner.de> wrote

Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] driver core: Functional dependencies tracking support

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 02:52:42PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 08:24:50 AM Lukas Wunner wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 02:33:18AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Friday, June 17, 2016 04:07:38 PM Lukas Wunner wrote: > > > &

Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Exynos IOMMU: proper runtime PM support (use device dependencies)

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:49:20PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 10:51:13 AM Marek Szyprowski wrote: > > On 2016-09-19 23:45, Tobias Jakobi wrote: > > > I did some tests with the new version today. Sadly the reboot/shutdown > > > issues are still present. > > >

Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] iommu/exynos: Use device dependency links to control runtime pm

On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 08:27:12AM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > On 2016-11-07 22:47, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Has there been any review of the existing similar solutions out there > > such as the DRM / audio component framework? Would that help ? > > Nope, none of that solution deals with

Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] iommu/exynos: Use device dependency links to control runtime pm

On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 08:27:12AM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > On 2016-11-07 22:47, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > If so > > why? If this issue is present also on systems that only use ACPI is > > this possibly due to an ACPI firmware bug or the lack of some semantics > > in ACPI to express

[PATCH 1/2] Documentation/core-api/device_link: Add initial documentation

...@arndb.de> Cc: Alan Stern <st...@rowland.harvard.edu> Cc: Hanjun Guo <guohan...@huawei.com> Cc: linux...@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org Cc: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org Cc: linux-samsung-...@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Lukas Wunner <lu...@wunner.de> --

[PATCH 0/2] Device links documentation

initiated by Luis Rodriguez after KS/LPC: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/11/7/790 https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/11/7/795 https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/11/8/899 The other half is based on the first draft I posted in September: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/27/215 Thanks, Lukas Lukas Wunner (2

[PATCH 2/2] driver core: Silence device links sphinx warning

Corbet <cor...@lwn.net> Cc: Silvio Fricke <silvio.fri...@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Lukas Wunner <lu...@wunner.de> --- drivers/base/core.c| 4 ++-- include/linux/device.h | 1 + 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base

Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] driver core: Find an existing link between two devices

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:12:05PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 12:23:34 PM CET Tomasz Figa wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 7:34 PM, Vivek Gautam > > wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:45 PM, Tomasz Figa

Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] driver core: Find an existing link between two devices

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:14:15PM +, Robin Murphy wrote: > >>On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 8:12 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki > >>wrote: > >>>On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 12:23:34 PM CET Tomasz Figa wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 7:34 PM, Vivek Gautam >

Re: [PATCH 1/4] PCI / ACPI: Identify external PCI devices

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 09:10:26PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote: > I was thinking we could cover all these with is_external filling them > based on the _DSD or some other means in the kernel. > > We would then deal all such devices as "untrusted" by default. Tinfoil hat on, even internal devices

Re: [PATCH 1/4] PCI / ACPI: Identify external PCI devices

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 01:37:37PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:13:56AM +, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > I have strong objections to the way these bindings have been forced upon > > everybody; if that's the way *generic* ACPI bindings are specified I > > wonder why

Re: [PATCH 0/4] PCI / iommu / thunderbolt: IOMMU based DMA protection

On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 07:06:24PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > Recent systems shipping with Windows 10 version 1803 or newer may be > utilizing IOMMU to prevent DMA attacks via Thunderbolt ports. This is > different from the previous security level based scheme because the > connected device

Re: [PATCH 1/4] PCI / ACPI: Identify external PCI devices

On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 07:06:25PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > --- a/drivers/pci/probe.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/probe.c > @@ -1378,6 +1378,27 @@ static void set_pcie_thunderbolt(struct pci_dev *dev) > } > } > > +static void set_pcie_external(struct pci_dev *dev) > +{ > + struct

Re: [PATCH] thunderbolt: Make iommu_dma_protection more accurate

On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 02:08:16PM +, Robin Murphy wrote: > OK, so do we have any realistic options for identifying the correct PCI > devices, if USB4 PCIe adapters might be anywhere relative to their > associated NHI? Short of maintaining a list of known IDs, the only thought I > have left is

Re: [PATCH] thunderbolt: Make iommu_dma_protection more accurate

On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 03:51:21PM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 02:08:16PM +, Robin Murphy wrote: > > OK, so do we have any realistic options for identifying the correct PCI > > devices, if USB4 PCIe adapters might be anywhere relative to their > >