On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 09:05:48PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> Some device drivers (panel backlights especially) need to follow precise
> sequences for powering on and off, involving gpios, regulators, PWMs
> with a precise powering order and delays to respect between each steps.
> These sequences are board-specific, and do not belong to a particular
> driver - therefore they have been performed by board-specific hook
> functions to far.
>
> With the advent of the device tree and of ARM kernels that are not
> board-tied, we cannot rely on these board-specific hooks anymore but
> need a way to implement these sequences in a portable manner. This patch
> introduces a simple interpreter that can execute such power sequences
> encoded either as platform data or within the device tree.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Documentation/power/power_seq.txt | 120 +++++++++++++++
> drivers/base/Kconfig | 4 +
> drivers/base/Makefile | 1 +
> drivers/base/power_seq.c | 300 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/power_seq.h | 139 ++++++++++++++++++
> 5 files changed, 564 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/power/power_seq.txt
> create mode 100644 drivers/base/power_seq.c
> create mode 100644 include/linux/power_seq.h
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/power/power_seq.txt b/Documentation/power/power_seq.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..aa2ceb5
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/power/power_seq.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
> +Runtime Interpreted Power Sequences
> +-----------------------------------
> +
> +Problem
> +-------
> +One very common board-dependent code is the out-of-driver code that is used to
> +turn a device on or off. For instance, SoC boards very commonly use a GPIO
> +(abstracted to a regulator or not) to control the power supply of a backlight,
> +disabling it when the backlight is not used in order to save power. The GPIO
> +that should be used, however, as well as the exact power sequence that may
> +involve different resources, is board-dependent and thus unknown of the driver.
> +
> +This has been addressed so far by using hooks in the device's platform data that
> +are called whenever the state of the device might reflect a power change. This
> +approach, however, introduces board-dependant code into the kernel and is not
> +compatible with the device tree.
> +
> +The Runtime Interpreted Power Sequences (or power sequences for short) aim at
> +turning this code into platform data or device tree nodes. Power sequences are
> +described using a simple format and run by a simple interpreter whenever needed.
> +This allows to remove the callback mechanism and makes the kernel less
> +board-dependant.
> +
> +Sequences Format
> +----------------
> +Power sequences are a series of sequential steps during which an action is
> +performed on a resource. The supported resources so far are:
> +- GPIOs
> +- Regulators
> +- PWMs
> +
> +Each step designates a resource and the following parameters:
> +- Whether the step should enable or disable the resource,
> +- Delay to wait before performing the action,
> +- Delay to wait after performing the action.
> +
> +Both new resources and parameters can be introduced, but the goal is of course
> +to keep things as simple and compact as possible.
> +
> +The platform data is a simple array of platform_power_seq_step instances, each
> +instance describing a step. The type as well as one of id or gpio members
> +(depending on the type) must be specified. The last step must be of type
> +POWER_SEQ_STOP. Regulator and PWM resources are identified by name. GPIO are
> +identified by number. For example, the following sequence will turn on the
> +"power" regulator of the device, wait 10ms, and set GPIO number 110 to 1:
> +
> +struct platform_power_seq_step power_on_seq[] = {
> + {
> + .type = POWER_SEQ_REGULATOR,
> + .id = "power",
> + .params = {
> + .enable = 1,
> + .post_delay = 10,
> + },
> + },
> + {
> + .type = POWER_SEQ_GPIO,
> + .gpio = 110,
> + .params = {
> + .enable = 1,
> + },
> + },
> + {
> + .type = POWER_SEQ_STOP,
> + },
> +};
> +
> +Usage by Drivers and Resources Management
> +-----------------------------------------
> +Power sequences make use of resources that must be properly allocated and
> +managed. The power_seq_build() function takes care of resolving the resources as
> +they are met in the sequence and to allocate them if needed:
> +
> +power_seq *power_seq_build(struct device *dev, power_seq_resources *ress,
> + platform_power_seq *pseq);
> +
> +You will need an instance of power_seq_resources to keep track of the resources
> +that are already allocated. On success, the function returns a devm allocated
> +resolved sequence that is ready to be passed to power_seq_run(). In case of
> +failure, and error code is returned.
I don't quite understand why the struct power_seq_resources is needed.
Can this not be stored within power_seq?
> +
> +A resolved power sequence returned by power_seq_build can be run by
> +power_run_run():
> +
> +int power_seq_run(struct device *dev, power_seq *seq);
Why is the struct device required here? It already is passed during the
call to pwm_seq_build(), so perhaps you should keep a reference to it
within struct power_seq?
> +
> +It returns 0 if the sequence has successfully been run, or an error code if a
> +problem occured.
> +
> +Finally, some resources that cannot be allocated through devm need to be freed
> +manually. Therefore, be sure to call power_seq_free_resources() in your device
> +remove function:
> +
> +void power_seq_free_resources(power_seq_resources *ress);
Could this not also be handled by a managed version? If a power_seq is
always managed, then I would assume that it also takes care of freeing
the resources, even if the resources have no managed equivalents.
Perhaps it would also make sense to provide non-managed version of these
functions. I think that would make the managed versions easier and more
canonical to implement.
> +
> +Device tree
> +-----------
> +All the same, power sequences can be encoded as device tree nodes. The following
> +properties and nodes are equivalent to the platform data defined previously:
> +
> + power-supply = <&mydevice_reg>;
> + enable-gpio = <&gpio 6 0>;
> +
> + power-on-sequence {
> + regulator@0 {
> + id = "power";
> + enable;
> + post-delay = <10>;
> + };
> + gpio@1 {
> + id = "enable-gpio";
> + enable;
> + };
> + };
> +
> +Note that first, the phandles of the regulator and gpio used in the sequences
> +are defined as properties. Then the sequence references them through the id
> +property of every step. The name of sub-properties defines the type of the step.
> +Valid names are "regulator", "gpio" and "pwm". Steps must be numbered
> +sequentially.
I think there has been quite some discussion regarding the naming of
subnodes and the conclusion seems to have been to name them uniformly
after what they represent. As such the power-on-sequence subnodes should
be called step@0, step@1, etc. However, that will require the addition
of a property to define the type of resource.
Also, is there some way we can make the id property for GPIOs not
require the -gpio suffix? If the resource type is already GPIO, then it
seems redundant to add -gpio to the ID.
> diff --git a/drivers/base/Kconfig b/drivers/base/Kconfig
> index 08b4c52..65bebfe 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/base/Kconfig
> @@ -282,4 +282,8 @@ config CMA_AREAS
>
> endif
>
> +config POWER_SEQ
> + bool
> + default n
> +
"default n" is already the default, so you can drop that line.
> endmenu
> diff --git a/drivers/base/Makefile b/drivers/base/Makefile
> index 5aa2d70..4c498c1 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/base/Makefile
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG_SPARSE) += memory.o
> ifeq ($(CONFIG_SYSFS),y)
> obj-$(CONFIG_MODULES) += module.o
> endif
> +obj-$(CONFIG_POWER_SEQ) += power_seq.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_SYS_HYPERVISOR) += hypervisor.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_REGMAP) += regmap/
> obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_BUS) += soc.o
> diff --git a/drivers/base/power_seq.c b/drivers/base/power_seq.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..6ccefa1
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/base/power_seq.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,300 @@
> +/*
> + * power_seq.c - A simple power sequence interpreter for platform devices
> + * and device tree.
> + *
> + * Author: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx>
> + *
> + * Copyright (c) 2012 NVIDIA Corporation.
> + *
> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> + * the Free Software Foundation; version 2 of the License.
> + *
> + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT
> + * ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
> + * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for
> + * more details.
> + *
> + * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along
> + * with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
> + * 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.
> + *
> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/power_seq.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/err.h>
> +#include <linux/device.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/delay.h>
> +#include <linux/pwm.h>
> +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> +#include <linux/gpio.h>
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> +#include <linux/of.h>
> +#include <linux/of_gpio.h>
> +#endif
I think you don't need the CONFIG_OF guard around these. Both of.h and
of_gpio.h can be included unconditionally and actually contain dummy
definitions for the public functions in the !OF case.
> +
> +static int power_seq_step_run(struct power_seq_step *step)
> +{
> + int err = 0;
> +
> + if (step->params.pre_delay)
> + mdelay(step->params.pre_delay);
> +
> + switch (step->resource->type) {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_REGULATOR
> + case POWER_SEQ_REGULATOR:
> + if (step->params.enable)
> + err = regulator_enable(step->resource->regulator);
> + else
> + err = regulator_disable(step->resource->regulator);
> + break;
> +#endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PWM
> + case POWER_SEQ_PWM:
> + if (step->params.enable)
> + err = pwm_enable(step->resource->pwm);
> + else
> + pwm_disable(step->resource->pwm);
> + break;
> +#endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_GPIOLIB
> + case POWER_SEQ_GPIO:
> + gpio_set_value_cansleep(step->resource->gpio,
> + step->params.enable);
> + break;
> +#endif
This kind of #ifdef'ery is quite ugly. I don't know if adding separate
*_run() functions for each type of resource would be any better, though.
Alternatively, maybe POWER_SEQ should depend on the REGULATOR, PWM and
GPIOLIB symbols to side-step the issue completely?
> + /*
> + * should never happen unless the sequence includes a step which
> + * type does not have support compiled in
> + */
> + default:
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + if (err < 0)
> + return err;
> +
> + if (step->params.post_delay)
> + mdelay(step->params.post_delay);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +int power_seq_run(struct device *dev, power_seq *seq)
> +{
> + int err;
> +
> + if (!seq) return 0;
I don't think this is acceptable according to the coding style. Also,
perhaps returning -EINVAL would be more meaningful?
> +
> + while (seq->resource) {
Perhaps this should check for POWER_SEQ_STOP instead?
> + if ((err = power_seq_step_run(seq++))) {
> + dev_err(dev, "error %d while running power sequence!\n",
> + err);
For this kind of diagnostics it could be useful to have a name
associated with the power sequence. But I'm not sure that making the
power sequence code output an error here is the best solution. I find it
to be annoying when core code starts outputting too many error codes. In
this case it's particularily easy to catch the errors in the caller.
> + return err;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(power_seq_run);
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> +static int of_parse_power_seq_step(struct device *dev, struct device_node *node,
> + struct platform_power_seq_step *step)
> +{
> + if (of_property_read_string(node, "id", &step->id)) {
> + dev_err(dev, "missing id property!\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + if (!strcmp(node->name, "regulator")) {
> + step->type = POWER_SEQ_REGULATOR;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF_GPIO
> + } else if (!strcmp(node->name, "gpio")) {
> + int gpio;
> +
> + step->type = POWER_SEQ_GPIO;
> + gpio = of_get_named_gpio(dev->of_node, step->id, 0);
> + if (gpio < 0) {
> + dev_err(dev, "cannot resolve gpio \"%s\"\n", step->id);
> + return gpio;
> + }
> + step->gpio = gpio;
> +#endif /* CONFIG_OF_GPIO */
> + } else if (!strcmp(node->name, "pwm")) {
> + step->type = POWER_SEQ_PWM;
> + } else {
> + dev_err(dev, "invalid power seq step type!\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + if (of_find_property(node, "enable", NULL)) {
> + step->params.enable = 1;
> + } else if (!of_find_property(node, "disable", NULL)) {
> + dev_err(dev, "missing enable or disable property!\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + of_property_read_u32(node, "pre-delay", &step->params.pre_delay);
> + of_property_read_u32(node, "post-delay", &step->params.post_delay);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +platform_power_seq *of_parse_power_seq(struct device *dev,
> + struct device_node *node)
> +{
> + struct device_node *child = NULL;
> + platform_power_seq *ret;
> + int cpt = 0;
> + int err;
> +
> + if (!node) return NULL;
Again, this should probably be split across two lines.
> +
> + while ((child = of_get_next_child(node, child)))
> + cpt++;
for_each_child_of_node()?
> +
> + /* allocate one more step to signal end of sequence */
> + ret = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*ret) * (cpt + 1), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!ret)
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +
> + cpt = 0;
> + while ((child = of_get_next_child(node, child))) {
Here as well.
> + if ((err = of_parse_power_seq_step(dev, child, &ret[cpt++])))
> + return ERR_PTR(err);
> + }
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_parse_power_seq);
> +#endif /* CONFIG_OF */
> +
> +static
> +struct power_seq_resource * power_seq_find_resource(power_seq_resources *ress,
> + struct platform_power_seq_step *res)
> +{
> + struct power_seq_resource *step;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(step, ress, list) {
> + if (step->type != res->type) continue;
> + switch (res->type) {
> + case POWER_SEQ_GPIO:
> + if (step->gpio == res->gpio)
> + return step;
> + break;
> + default:
> + if (!strcmp(step->id, res->id))
> + return step;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static int power_seq_allocate_resource(struct device *dev,
> + struct power_seq_resource *res)
> +{
> + int err;
> +
> + switch (res->type) {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_REGULATOR
> + case POWER_SEQ_REGULATOR:
> + res->regulator = devm_regulator_get(dev, res->id);
> + if (IS_ERR(res->regulator)) {
> + dev_err(dev, "cannot get regulator \"%s\"\n", res->id);
> + return PTR_ERR(res->regulator);
> + }
> + break;
> +#endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PWM
> + case POWER_SEQ_PWM:
> + res->pwm = pwm_get(dev, res->id);
> + if (IS_ERR(res->pwm)) {
> + dev_err(dev, "cannot get pwm \"%s\"\n", res->id);
> + return PTR_ERR(res->pwm);
> + }
> + break;
> +#endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_GPIOLIB
> + case POWER_SEQ_GPIO:
> + err = devm_gpio_request_one(dev, res->gpio, GPIOF_OUT_INIT_HIGH,
> + "backlight_gpio");
> + if (err) {
> + dev_err(dev, "cannot get gpio %d\n", res->gpio);
> + return err;
> + }
> + break;
> +#endif
> + default:
> + dev_err(dev, "invalid resource type %d\n", res->type);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +power_seq *power_seq_build(struct device *dev, power_seq_resources *ress,
> + platform_power_seq *pseq)
> +{
> + struct power_seq_step *seq = NULL, *ret;
> + struct power_seq_resource *res;
> + int cpt, err;
> +
> + /* first pass to count the number of steps to allocate */
> + for (cpt = 0; pseq[cpt].type != POWER_SEQ_STOP; cpt++);
Wouldn't it be easier to pass around the number of steps in the sequence
instead of having to count in various places? This would be more along
the lines of how struct platform_device defines associated resources.
> +
> + if (!cpt)
> + return seq;
Perhaps this should return an error-code as well? I find it nice to not
have to handle NULL specially when using ERR_PTR et al.
> +
> + /* 1 more for the STOP step */
> + ret = seq = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*seq) * (cpt + 1), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!seq)
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +
> + for (; pseq->type != POWER_SEQ_STOP; pseq++, seq++) {
> + /* create resource node if not referenced already */
> + if (!(res = power_seq_find_resource(ress, pseq))) {
> + res = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*res), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!res)
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> + res->type = pseq->type;
> +
> + if (res->type == POWER_SEQ_GPIO)
> + res->gpio = pseq->gpio;
> + else
> + res->id = pseq->id;
> +
> + if ((err = power_seq_allocate_resource(dev, res)) < 0)
> + return ERR_PTR(err);
> +
> + list_add(&res->list, ress);
> + }
> + seq->resource = res;
> + memcpy(&seq->params, &pseq->params, sizeof(seq->params));
> + }
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(power_seq_build);
> +
> +void power_seq_free_resources(power_seq_resources *ress) {
The brace needs to go on a line by itself.
> + struct power_seq_resource *res;
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PWM
> + list_for_each_entry(res, ress, list) {
> + if (res->type == POWER_SEQ_PWM)
> + pwm_put(res->pwm);
> + }
> +#endif
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(power_seq_free_resources);
> +
> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx>");
> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Runtime Interpreted Power Sequences");
> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> diff --git a/include/linux/power_seq.h b/include/linux/power_seq.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..da0593a
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/linux/power_seq.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
> +/*
> + * power_seq.h
> + *
> + * Simple interpreter for defining power sequences as platform data or device
> + * tree properties. Initially designed for use with backlight drivers.
> + *
> + * Power sequences are designed to replace the callbacks typically used in
> + * board-specific files that implement board-specific power sequences of devices
> + * such as backlights. A power sequence is an array of resources (which can a
> + * regulator, a GPIO, a PWM, ...) with an action to perform on it (enable or
> + * disable) and optional pre and post step delays. By having them interpreted
> + * instead of arbitrarily executed, it is possible to describe these in the
> + * device tree and thus remove board-specific code from the kernel.
> + *
> + * Author: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx>
> + *
> + * Copyright (c) 2012 NVIDIA Corporation.
> + *
> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> + * the Free Software Foundation; version 2 of the License.
> + *
> + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT
> + * ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
> + * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for
> + * more details.
> + *
> + * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along
> + * with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
> + * 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.
> + *
> + */
> +
> +#ifndef __LINUX_POWER_SEQ_H
> +#define __LINUX_POWER_SEQ_H
> +
> +#include <linux/types.h>
> +
> +struct device;
> +struct regulator;
> +struct pwm_device;
> +struct device_node;
> +
> +/**
> + * The different kinds of resources that can be controlled during the sequences.
> + */
> +typedef enum {
> + POWER_SEQ_STOP = 0,
> + POWER_SEQ_REGULATOR,
> + POWER_SEQ_PWM,
> + POWER_SEQ_GPIO,
> + POWER_SEQ_MAX,
> +} power_res_type;
Maybe the prefix power_seq should be used here as well, so:
power_seq_res_type.
> +
> +struct power_seq_resource {
> + power_res_type type;
> + /* name to resolve for resources with a name (regulator, pwm) */
> + const char *id;
> + /* resolved resource */
> + union {
> + struct regulator *regulator;
> + struct pwm_device *pwm;
> + int gpio;
> + };
> + /* used to maintain the list of resources used by the driver */
> + struct list_head list;
> +};
> +typedef struct list_head power_seq_resources;
No type definitions like this, please. Also, why define this particular
type globally?
> +
> +struct power_step_params {
> + /* enable the resource if 1, disable if 0 */
> + bool enable;
> + /* delay (in ms) to wait before executing the step */
> + int pre_delay;
> + /* delay (in ms) to wait after executing the step */
> + int post_delay;
unsigned int for the delays?
> +};
> +
> +/**
> + * Platform definition of power sequences. A sequence is an array of these,
> + * terminated by a STOP instance.
> + */
> +struct platform_power_seq_step {
> + power_res_type type;
> + union {
> + /* Used by REGULATOR and PWM types to name the resource */
> + const char *id;
> + /* Used by GPIO */
> + int gpio;
> + };
> + struct power_step_params params;
> +};
> +typedef struct platform_power_seq_step platform_power_seq;
Why are the parameters kept in a separate structure? What are the
disadvantages of keeping the in the sequence step structure directly?
> +
> +/**
> + * Power sequence steps resolved against their resource. Built by
> + * power_seq_build and used to run the sequence.
> + */
> +struct power_seq_step {
> + struct power_seq_resource *resource;
> + struct power_step_params params;
> +};
> +typedef struct power_seq_step power_seq;
Would it make sense to make the struct power_seq opaque? I don't see why
anyone but the power_seq code should access the internals. For resource
managing it might also be easier to separate struct power_seq_step and
struct power_seq, making the power_seq basically something like:
struct power_seq {
struct power_seq_step *steps;
unsigned int num_steps;
};
Perhaps a name field can be included for diagnostic purposes.
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> +/**
> + * Build a platform data sequence from a device tree node. Memory for the
> + * sequence is allocated using devm_kzalloc on dev.
> + */
> +platform_power_seq *of_parse_power_seq(struct device *dev,
> + struct device_node *node);
> +#else
> +platform_power_seq *of_parse_power_seq(struct device *dev,
> + struct device_node *node)
> +{
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> +/**
> + * Build a runnable power sequence from platform data, and add the resources
> + * it uses into ress. Memory for the sequence is allocated using devm_kzalloc
> + * on dev.
> + */
> +power_seq *power_seq_build(struct device *dev, power_seq_resources *ress,
> + platform_power_seq *pseq);
I already mentioned this above: I fail to see why the ress parameter is
needed here. It is an internal implementation detail of the power
sequence code. Maybe a better place would be to include it within the
struct power_seq.
> +/**
> + * Free all the resources previously allocated by power_seq_allocate_resources.
> + */
> +void power_seq_free_resources(power_seq_resources *ress);
> +
> +/**
> + * Run the given power sequence. Returns 0 on success, error code in case of
> + * failure.
> + */
> +int power_seq_run(struct device *dev, power_seq *seq);
I think the API is too fine grained here. From a user's point of view,
I'd expect a sequence like this:
seq = power_seq_build(dev, sequence);
...
power_seq_run(seq);
...
power_seq_free(seq);
Perhaps with managed variants where the power_seq_free() is executed
automatically:
seq = devm_power_seq_build(dev, sequence);
...
power_seq_run(seq);
Generally I really like where this is going.
Thierry
Attachment:
pgpKnE4lcC_mh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
