Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips | From | Jon Hunter <> | Date | Thu, 12 Nov 2015 15:38:23 +0000 |
| |
On 12/11/15 14:37, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > On 11/12/2015 03:02 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: > [...] >>>>> One easy way out might be to always call pm_get/pm_but from >>>>> bus_lock,/bus_unlock. This way the chip is guaranteed to be powered up when >>>>> accessed happens. In addition pm_get is called when the IRQ is request and >>>>> pm_put is called when the IRQ is release, this is to ensure the chip stays >>>>> powered when it is actively monitoring the IRQ lines. >>>> >>>> Yes I had thought about that, but it is not quite that easy, because in >>>> the case of request_irq() you don't want to pm_put() after the >>>> bus_unlock(). However, the bus_lock/unlock() are good indicators of >>>> different paths. >>> >>> You'd call pm_get() twice in request_irq() once from bus_lock() and once >>> independently, that way you still have a reference even after the bus_unlock(). >> >> Yes that is a possibility. However, there are places such as >> show_interrupts() (kernel/irq/proc.c) and irq_gc_suspend() that do not >> call bus_lock/unlock() which would need to be handled for PM. May be >> these should also call bus_lock() as well? > > show_interrupts() only accesses software state, not hardware state, or does it?
Good point. Today there only appears to be one user:
arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_msi.c: .irq_print_chip = fsl_msi_print_chip,
This one is purely software. However, it would be easy to handle the show_interrupts case if needed.
> suspend/resume is a bit tricky. It's kind of driver specific if it needs to > actually access the hardware or whether the state is already shadowed in > software. Maybe we can make this an exception for now and let drivers handle > this on their own.
Yes I would agree with you on that.
Cheers Jon
| |