Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 11 Apr 2016 22:17:03 +0900 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] extcon: usb-gpio: Don't miss event during suspend/resume | From | Chanwoo Choi <> |
| |
Hi Roger,
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com> wrote: > Chanwoo, > > On 11/04/16 14:12, Chanwoo Choi wrote: >> On 2016년 04월 11일 17:37, Grygorii Strashko wrote: >>> On 04/11/2016 03:31 AM, Chanwoo Choi wrote: >>>> Hi Roger, >>>> >>>> On 2016년 04월 08일 16:34, Roger Quadros wrote: >>>>> Pin state might have changed during suspend/resume while >>>>> our interrupts were disabled and if device doesn't support wakeup. >>>>> >>>>> Scan for change during resume for such case. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> v2: >>>>> - only check for state change during resume if device wakeup is not supported >>>>> >>>>> drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c | 2 ++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c b/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c >>>>> index bc61d11..118f8ab 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c >>>>> @@ -185,6 +185,8 @@ static int usb_extcon_resume(struct device *dev) >>>>> int ret = 0; >>>>> >>>>> enable_irq(info->id_irq); >>>>> + if (!device_may_wakeup(dev)) >>>>> + usb_extcon_detect_cable(&info->wq_detcable.work); >>>> >>>> The device_may_wakeup() check the following two states: >>>> - dev->power.can_wakeup - device_init_wakeup() function set the this field. >>>> - dev->power.wakeup - device_wakeup_enable() function set the this field. >>>> >>>> The probe function of extcon-usb-gpio.c always call the 'device_init_wakeup(dev,true). >>>> But, anywhere in extcon-usb-gpio.c don't handle the device_wakeup_enable() for dev->power.wakeup. >>> >>> >>> device_init_wakeup() >>> |-> device_wakeup_enable() >>> >>>> >>>> In the extcon-usb-gpio.c, device_may_wakeup(dev) return always 'false'. >>>> If you use the only device_may_wakeup(), >>>> device_may_wakeup() is not able to check whether interrupt is wakeup source or not. >>>> >>> >>> This check is correct and it also will take into account wake up settings changes >>> which can be made through sysfs: /sys/.../devX/power/wakeup >>> >> >> To Grygorii, >> >> You're right. I was mistaken. Again, I analyzed the sequence about wakeup. >> Thanks for your reply. >> >> 1. Register device as wakeup_source. >> device_init_wakeup(dev, true) on probe() >> device_wakeup_enable(dev) >> device_source_register(const char *name) >> struct wakeup_source *ws; >> ws = wakeup_source_create(name) >> if (ws) >> wakeup_source_add(ws); >> ... >> list_add_rcu(&ws->entry, &wakeup_sources); >> ... >> return ws; >> >> >> 2. Register the interrupt as wake_irq >> dev_pm_set_wake_irq(struct device *dev, int irq) on probe() >> struct wake_irq *wirq; >> wirq->dev = dev; >> wirq->irq = irq; >> dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(dev, irq, wirq); >> device_wakeup_attach_irq(*dev, *wakeirq) >> struct wakeup_source *ws; >> ws = dev->power.wakeup; >> ws->wakeirq = wakeirq; >> >> >> 3. Enable irq wake if device is already registed to wakeup_sources. >> dpm_suspend_noirq() >> device_wakeup_arm_wake_irqs() >> list_for_each_entry_rcu(ws, &wakeup_sources, entry) { >> if (ws->wakeirq) >> dev_pm_arm_wake_irq(sw->wakeirq); >> if (device_may_wakeup(wirq->dev)) >> enable_irq_wake(wirq->irq); >> >> >> To Roger, >> >> How about using the queue_delayed_work() instead of direct call function? >> Because the spent time of wakeup from suspend state should be fast. >> So, I think that you better to use the queue_delayed_work(). >> >> diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c b/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c >> index 118f8ab3be73..f6cbdfe31519 100644 >> --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c >> +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c >> @@ -186,7 +186,9 @@ static int usb_extcon_resume(struct device *dev) >> >> enable_irq(info->id_irq); >> if (!device_may_wakeup(dev)) >> - usb_extcon_detect_cable(&info->wq_detcable.work); >> + queue_delayed_work(system_power_efficient_wq, >> + &info->wq_detcable, >> + info->debounce_jiffies); > > Why not to just use queue_work() instead of queue_delayed_work() > as don't need to debounce the input?
The use of queue_work() is good.
Thanks, Chanwoo Choi
| |