lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/5] clk: rockchip: Turn on "aclk_dmac1" for suspend
Date
Am Freitag, 12. April 2019, 01:21:53 CEST schrieb Douglas Anderson:
> Experimentally it can be seen that going into deep sleep (specifically
> setting PMU_CLR_DMA and PMU_CLR_BUS in RK3288_PMU_PWRMODE_CON1)
> appears to fail unless "aclk_dmac1" is on. The failure is that the
> system never signals that it made it into suspend on the GLOBAL_PWROFF
> pin and it just hangs.
>
> NOTE that it's confirmed that it's the actual suspend that fails, not
> one of the earlier calls to read/write registers. Specifically if you
> comment out the "PMU_GLOBAL_INT_DISABLE" setting in
> rk3288_slp_mode_set() and then comment out the "cpu_do_idle()" call in
> rockchip_lpmode_enter() then you can exercise the whole suspend path
> without any crashing.
>
> This is currently not a problem with suspend upstream because there is
> no current way to exercise the deep suspend code. However, anyone
> trying to make it work will run into this issue.
>
> This was not a problem on shipping rk3288-based Chromebooks because
> those devices all ran on an old kernel based on 3.14. On that kernel
> "aclk_dmac1" appears to be left on all the time.
>
> There are several ways to skin this problem.
>
> A) We could add "aclk_dmac1" to the list of critical clocks and that
> apperas to work, but presumably that wastes power.
>
> B) We could keep a list of "struct clk" objects to enable at suspend
> time in clk-rk3288.c and use the standard clock APIs.
>
> C) We could make the rk3288-pmu driver keep a list of clocks to enable
> at suspend time. Presumably this would require a dts and bindings
> change.
>
> D) We could just whack the clock on in the existing syscore suspend
> function where we whack a bunch of other clocks. This is particularly
> easy because we know for sure that the clock's only parent
> ("aclk_cpu") is a critical clock so we don't need to do anything more
> than ungate it.
>
> In this case I have chosen D) because it seemed like the least work,
> but any of the other options would presumably also work fine.
>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>

applied for 5.2 with Elaine's rb

Thanks
Heiko


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-12 12:07    [W:0.160 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site