On 11/01/23 21:24, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>
> On 1/11/23 03:02, Vijendar Mukunda wrote:
>> Add wake enable interrupt support for both the soundwire controller
> SoundWire.
>
>> instances.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vijendar Mukunda <Vijendar.Mukunda@xxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Mastan Katragadda <Mastan.Katragadda@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/soundwire/amd_master.c | 9 +++++++++
>> drivers/soundwire/amd_master.h | 1 +
>> include/linux/soundwire/sdw_amd.h | 1 +
>> 3 files changed, 11 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/soundwire/amd_master.c b/drivers/soundwire/amd_master.c
>> index 290c59ab7760..2fd77a673c22 100644
>> --- a/drivers/soundwire/amd_master.c
>> +++ b/drivers/soundwire/amd_master.c
>> @@ -1219,6 +1219,13 @@ static void amd_sdwc_update_slave_status_work(struct work_struct *work)
>> u32 sw_status_change_mask_0to7_reg;
>> u32 sw_status_change_mask_8to11_reg;
>>
>> + if (ctrl->wake_event) {
>> + pm_runtime_resume(ctrl->dev);
>> + acp_reg_writel(0x00, ctrl->mmio + ACP_SW_WAKE_EN);
>> + ctrl->wake_event = false;
>> + return;
>> + }
> this is surprising.
>
> A wake event typically happens when the bus is in clock-stop mode.
> You cannot deal with wake events while dealing with the peripheral
> status update, because you can only get that status when the manager is
> up-and-running. There's a conceptual miss here, no?
>
> If the wake comes from the PCI side, then it's the same comment: why
> would the wake be handled while updating the peripheral status.
>
> What am I missing?
>
It's a miss. This should be moved out of slave_status_work() even
though when wake enable irq is received we are just returning
from API.
will move wake interrupt handling in to a separate helper function.
