On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 11:01:57AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 02:15:02PM +0530, Sandeep Maheswaram wrote: > > Keep the power domain on in order to retain controller status and > > to support wakeup from devices. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sandeep Maheswaram <quic_c_sanm@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-qcom.c | 6 ++++++ > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-qcom.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-qcom.c > > index 9804a19..35087cf 100644 > > --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-qcom.c > > +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-qcom.c > > @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ > > #include <linux/of_platform.h> > > #include <linux/platform_device.h> > > #include <linux/phy/phy.h> > > +#include <linux/pm_domain.h> > > #include <linux/usb/of.h> > > #include <linux/reset.h> > > #include <linux/iopoll.h> > > @@ -724,6 +725,7 @@ static int dwc3_qcom_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > struct resource *res, *parent_res = NULL; > > int ret, i; > > bool ignore_pipe_clk; > > + struct generic_pm_domain *genpd; > > > > qcom = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*qcom), GFP_KERNEL); > > if (!qcom) > > @@ -732,6 +734,8 @@ static int dwc3_qcom_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, qcom); > > qcom->dev = &pdev->dev; > > > > + genpd = pd_to_genpd(qcom->dev->pm_domain); > > + > > if (has_acpi_companion(dev)) { > > qcom->acpi_pdata = acpi_device_get_match_data(dev); > > if (!qcom->acpi_pdata) { > > @@ -839,6 +843,8 @@ static int dwc3_qcom_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > if (ret) > > goto interconnect_exit; > > > > + genpd->flags |= GENPD_FLAG_ALWAYS_ON; > > Not sure it really matters, but could this be done conditionally based > on device_can_wakeup() of the dwc3 core device? +1. Makes sense to me. > > > + > > device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1); > > Now that the dwc3 core looks at the wakeup-source property it seems > this driver should enable wakeup only when it is enabled for the > core. > > Actually I wonder if it would make sense to leave wakeup for dwc3-qcom > 'officially' disabled, and just make all wakeup related decisions > based on the wakeup configuration of the dwc3 core (as > dwc3_qcom_en/disable_interrupts() already do). The separate wakeup > policies for dwc3 core and dwc3-qcom are confusing and don't seem to > add any value. This suggestion makes sense. Do we foresee any issues by not marking this parent device not wakeup capable? I don't see any. Thanks, Pavan