lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Nov]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] PM / wakeirq: report wakeup events in dedicated wake-IRQs
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote:
> * Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> [161111 14:29]:
>> * Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> [161111 13:33]:
>> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote:
>> > > * Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> [161110 16:06]:
>> > >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> wrote:
>> > >> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:13:55AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> > >> >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> wrote:
>> > >> >> > It's important that user space can figure out what device woke the
>> > >> >> > system from suspend -- e.g., for debugging, or for implementing
>> > >> >> > conditional wake behavior. Dedicated wakeup IRQs don't currently do
>> > >> >> > that.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > Let's report the event (pm_wakeup_event()) and also allow drivers to
>> > >> >> > synchronize with these events in their resume path (hence, disable_irq()
>> > >> >> > instead of disable_irq_nosync()).
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Hmm, dev_pm_disable_wake_irq() is called from
>> > >> >> rpm_suspend()/rpm_resume() that take dev->power.lock spinlock and
>> > >> >> disable interrupts. Dropping _nosync() feels dangerous.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Indeed. So how do you suggest we get sane wakeup reports? Every device
>> > >> > or bus that's going to use the dedicated wake APIs has to
>> > >> > synchronize_irq() [1] in their resume() routine? Seems like an odd
>> > >> > implementation detail to have to remember (and therefore most drivers
>> > >> > will get it wrong).
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Brian
>> > >> >
>> > >> > [1] Or maybe at least create a helper API that will extract the
>> > >> > dedicated wake IRQ number and do the synchronize_irq() for us, so
>> > >> > drivers don't have to stash this separately (or poke at
>> > >> > dev->power.wakeirq->irq) for no good reason.
>> > >>
>> > >> Well, in the first place, can anyone please refresh my memory on why
>> > >> it is necessary to call dev_pm_disable_wake_irq() under power.lock?
>> > >
>> > > I guess no other reason except we need to manage the wakeirq
>> > > for rpm_callback(). So we dev_pm_enable_wake_irq() before
>> > > rpm_callback() in rpm_suspend(), then disable on resume.
>> >
>> > But we drop the lock in rpm_callback(), so can't it be moved to where
>> > the callback is invoked?
>>
>> Then we're back to patching all the drivers again, no?
>
> Sorry I misunderstood, yeah that should work if rpm_callback() drops
> the lock.

It still will not re-enable interrupts if the irq_safe flag is set. I
wonder if we really care about this case, though.

Thanks,
Rafael

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-11-12 00:35    [W:0.078 / U:0.468 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site