On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 at 14:08, Martin Kepplinger <martin.kepplinger@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Am Montag, dem 18.07.2022 um 12:54 +0200 schrieb Ulf Hansson: > > On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 at 14:19, Martin Kepplinger > > <martin.kepplinger@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > If the power-domains' power-supply node (regulator) needs > > > interrupts to work, the current setup with noirq callbacks cannot > > > work; for example a pmic regulator on i2c, when suspending, usually > > > already > > > times out during suspend_noirq: > > > > > > [ 41.024193] buck4: failed to disable: -ETIMEDOUT > > > > > > So fix system suspend and resume for these power-domains by using > > > the > > > "outer" suspend/resume callbacks instead. Tested on the imx8mq- > > > librem5 > > > board, but by looking at the dts, this will fix imx8mq-evk and > > > possibly > > > other boards too. > > > > > > Possibly one can find more changes than suspend/resume for this > > > case. They > > > can be added later when testing them. > > > > > > Initially system suspend problems had been discussed at > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20211002005954.1367653-8-l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > which led to discussing the pmic that contains the regulators which > > > serve as power-domain power-supplies: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/573166b75e524517782471c2b7f96e03fd93d175.camel@xxxxxxx/T/ > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Martin Kepplinger <martin.kepplinger@xxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > > > revision history > > > ---------------- > > > v2: (thank you Krzysztof) > > > * rewrite: find possible regulators' interrupts property in parents > > > instead of inventing a new property. > > > > > > v1: (initial idea) > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20220711094549.3445566-1-martin.kepplinger@xxxxxxx/T/#t > > > > > > > > > drivers/base/power/domain.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/domain.c > > > b/drivers/base/power/domain.c > > > index 3e86772d5fac..ca3e3500939d 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/base/power/domain.c > > > +++ b/drivers/base/power/domain.c > > > @@ -2298,6 +2298,28 @@ static bool genpd_present(const struct > > > generic_pm_domain *genpd) > > > return ret; > > > } > > > > > > +/** > > > + * of_genpd_get_power_supply_irq() - Adjust if power-supply needs > > > interrupts > > > + * @genpd: Pointer to PM domain associated with the PM domain > > > provider. > > > + */ > > > +static void of_genpd_get_power_supply_irq(struct generic_pm_domain > > > *pd) > > > +{ > > > + struct device_node *dn; > > > + > > > + dn = of_parse_phandle(pd->dev.of_node, "power-supply", 0); > > > + if (!dn) > > > + return; > > > + > > > + while ((dn = of_get_next_parent(dn))) { > > > + if (of_get_property(dn, "interrupts", NULL)) { > > > + pd->domain.ops.suspend = > > > genpd_suspend_noirq; > > > + pd->domain.ops.resume = genpd_resume_noirq; > > > + pd->domain.ops.suspend_noirq = NULL; > > > + pd->domain.ops.resume_noirq = NULL; > > > + } > > > + } > > > +} > > > + > > > /** > > > * of_genpd_add_provider_simple() - Register a simple PM domain > > > provider > > > * @np: Device node pointer associated with the PM domain > > > provider. > > > @@ -2343,6 +2365,8 @@ int of_genpd_add_provider_simple(struct > > > device_node *np, > > > genpd->provider = &np->fwnode; > > > genpd->has_provider = true; > > > > > > + of_genpd_get_power_supply_irq(genpd); > > > + > > > return 0; > > > } > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_genpd_add_provider_simple); > > > @@ -2394,6 +2418,8 @@ int of_genpd_add_provider_onecell(struct > > > device_node *np, > > > > > > genpd->provider = &np->fwnode; > > > genpd->has_provider = true; > > > + > > > + of_genpd_get_power_supply_irq(genpd); > > > } > > > > > > ret = genpd_add_provider(np, data->xlate, data); > > > > Overall I understand the need for this, but let me suggest a slightly > > different approach to solve this. See below. > > > > I think the OF parsing looks quite platform specific. Rather than > > adding this in the generic layer of genpd, I suggest that we move the > > OF parsing into the genpd provider code. > > > > Moreover, to inform genpd that it should use the other set of > > callbacks for system suspend/resume, let's add a new genpd > > configuration bit. The genpd provider should then set the genpd- > > >flag, > > prior to calling pm_genpd_init(), to let it know that it should pick > > the other callbacks. > > > > Does it make sense? > > the provider here would be gpcv2, right? Correct. > Conceptually I know what you > mean and will try to make it work later. thanks a lot! Great! Feel free to ping me if you need some help to put it together. Kind regards Uffe
