On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 11:00:20PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, December 3, 2018 4:38:46 PM CET Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > Hi Lorenzo,
> >
> > Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> wrote on Mon, 3 Dec 2018
> > 10:27:08 +0000:
> >
> > > [+Rafael, Sudeep]
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 03:18:24PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > > > Add suspend and resume callbacks. The priority of these are
> > > > "_noirq()", to workaround early access to the registers done by the
> > > > PCI core through the ->read()/->write() callbacks at resume time.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c
> > > > index 108b3f15c410..7ecf1ac4036b 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c
> > > > @@ -1108,6 +1108,55 @@ static int advk_pcie_setup_clk(struct advk_pcie *pci
> > > > return ret;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +static int __maybe_unused advk_pcie_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct advk_pcie *pcie = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > > > +
> > > > + advk_pcie_disable_phy(pcie);
> > > > +
> > > > + clk_disable_unprepare(pcie->clk);
> > >
> > > I have noticed it is common practice, still, I would like to check whether
> > > it is allowed to call functions that may sleep in a NOIRQ suspend/resume
> > > callback ?
> >
> > You are right this is weird. I double checked and for instance,
> > pcie-mediatek.c, pci-tegra.c and pci-imx6.c do the exact same thing. There are
> > probably other cases where drivers call functions that may sleep from a NOIRQ
> > context. I am interested to know if this is valid and if not, what is the
> > alternative?
> >
>
> Yes, it is valid. _noirq means that the high-level action handlers
> will not be invoked for interrupts occurring during that period, but
> that doesn't apply to timer interrupts.
>
> IOW, don't expect *your* IRQ handler to be invoked then (if this is
> not a timer IRQ), but you can sleep.
Hi Rafael, all,
I did not ask my question (that may be silly) properly apologies. I know
that the S2R context allows sleeping the question is, in case
clk_disable_unprepare() (and resume counterparts) sleeps, what is going
to wake it up, given that we are in the S2R NOIRQ phase and as you said
the action handlers (that are possibly required to wake up the eg
clk_disable_unprepare() caller) are disabled (unless, AFAIK,
IRQF_NO_SUSPEND is passed at IRQ request time in the respective driver).
The clk API implementations back-ends are beyond my depth, I just wanted
to make sure I understand how the S2R flow is expected to work in this
specific case.
Thanks,
Lorenzo
