Hi, On 7/28/2015 10:53 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 06:53:52PM +0530, Vignesh R wrote: >> Hi Dmitry, >> >> On 07/25/2015 01:46 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:26:19PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 02:14:57PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Dmitry Torokhov >>>>> <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> Sometimes drivers might wish to transition from index-based to named >>>>>> interrupt descriptions. To aid in decision-making when parsing device >>>>>> tree data let's provide a helper that will indicate the scheme that is >>>>>> being used. >>>>> >>>>> Generally, IRQs are retrieved by platform_get_irq or >>>>> platform_get_irq_byname. Drivers should not call the of_irq_* >>>>> functions directly in most cases. >>>> >>>> That would be true for platform drivers, but not all devices are >>>> platform devices. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> The intent is to it like this: >>>>>> >>>>>> if (of_has_named_irqs(np) { >>>>>> /* Wake IRQ is optional */ >>>>>> dev->wakeirq = of_irq_get_byname(np, "wakeup"); >>>>>> if (dev->wakeirq < 0 && dev->wakeirq != -ENODATA) >>>>>> return dev->wakeirq; >>>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> of_irq_get_byname will already return an error if the property is not >>>>> present. Use that. >>>> >>>> I do not like that it returns -EINVAL when property is missing, can we >>>> change it to return -ENODATA (so it is the same as when the property is >>>> defined but such name is missing)? >>> >>> So here is what I had in mind.. It is based on recent patch by Vignesh >>> for pixcir touchscreen, but I think it should be made available to all >>> I2C devices. Completely untested at the moment. >>> >> >> Thanks for the patch! I tested this on am437x-gp-evm and the >> suspend/resume worked fine (below patch + $subject patch). I was able to >> wake the system from low power state using touchscreen. Also verified >> module insertion and removal. One comment though, please see below. >> >>> --- >>> drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >>> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c >>> index e6d4935..3971461 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c >>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c >>> @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ >>> #include <linux/rwsem.h> >>> #include <linux/pm_runtime.h> >>> #include <linux/pm_domain.h> >>> +#include <linux/pm_wakeirq.h> >>> #include <linux/acpi.h> >>> #include <linux/jump_label.h> >>> #include <asm/uaccess.h> >>> @@ -631,6 +632,7 @@ static int i2c_device_probe(struct device *dev) >>> { >>> struct i2c_client *client = i2c_verify_client(dev); >>> struct i2c_driver *driver; >>> + int wakeirq = 0; >>> int status; >>> >>> if (!client) >>> @@ -639,11 +641,13 @@ static int i2c_device_probe(struct device *dev) >>> if (!client->irq) { >>> int irq = -ENOENT; >>> >>> - if (dev->of_node) >>> - irq = of_irq_get(dev->of_node, 0); >>> - else if (ACPI_COMPANION(dev)) >>> + if (dev->of_node) { >>> + irq = of_has_named_irqs(dev->of_node) ? >>> + of_irq_get_byname(dev->of_node, "irq") : >>> + of_irq_get(dev->of_node, 0); >>> + } else if (ACPI_COMPANION(dev)) { >>> irq = acpi_dev_gpio_irq_get(ACPI_COMPANION(dev), 0); >>> - >>> + } >>> if (irq == -EPROBE_DEFER) >>> return irq; >>> if (irq < 0) >>> @@ -652,6 +656,15 @@ static int i2c_device_probe(struct device *dev) >>> client->irq = irq; >>> } >>> >>> + if (dev->of_node && of_has_named_irqs(dev->of_node)) { >>> + wakeirq = of_irq_get_byname(dev->of_node, "wakeup"); >>> + if (wakeirq < 0) { >>> + if (wakeirq != -ENODATA) >>> + return wakeirq; >>> + wakeirq = 0; >>> + } >>> + } >>> + >>> driver = to_i2c_driver(dev->driver); >>> if (!driver->probe || !driver->id_table) >>> return -ENODEV;diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c index 8f3e243a62bf..6bd1d1ca9883 100644 --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c @@ -365,7 +365,6 @@ static int __maybe_unused pixcir_i2c_ts_suspend(struct device *dev) } } - enable_irq_wake(client->irq); } else if (input->users) { ret = pixcir_stop(ts); } @@ -386,7 +385,6 @@ static int __maybe_unused pixcir_i2c_ts_resume(struct device *dev) mutex_lock(&input->mutex); if (device_may_wakeup(&client->dev)) { - disable_irq_wake(client->irq); if (!input->users) { ret = pixcir_stop(ts); @@ -464,7 +462,7 @@ static int pixcir_i2c_ts_probe(struct i2c_client *client, struct pixcir_i2c_ts_data *tsdata; struct input_dev *input; int error; - +printk("PROBING PIXCIR\n"); if (np && !pdata) { pdata = pixcir_parse_dt(dev); if (IS_ERR(pdata)) @@ -562,14 +560,6 @@ static int pixcir_i2c_ts_probe(struct i2c_client *client, return error; i2c_set_clientdata(client, tsdata); - device_init_wakeup(&client->dev, 1); - - return 0; -} - -static int pixcir_i2c_ts_remove(struct i2c_client *client) -{ - device_init_wakeup(&client->dev, 0); return 0; } @@ -608,7 +598,6 @@ static struct i2c_driver pixcir_i2c_ts_driver = { .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(pixcir_of_match), }, .probe = pixcir_i2c_ts_probe, - .remove = pixcir_i2c_ts_remove, .id_table = pixcir_i2c_ts_id, }; >>> @@ -659,20 +672,34 @@ static int i2c_device_probe(struct device *dev) >>> if y i2c(!device_can_wakeup(&client->dev)) >>> device_init_wakeup(&client->dev, >>> client->flags & I2C_CLIENT_WAKE); >>> + >>> + status = wakeirq > 0 ? >>> + dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq(dev, wakeirq) : >>> + (client->irq > 0 ? >>> + dev_pm_set_wake_irq(dev, client->irq) : 0); >> >> Above code tries to register wakeirq irrespective of whether the device >> is specified as wakeup-source in the dt or not. Hence, I see warn >> messages from every i2c device that has irq line but hasn't declared >> itself as wakeup-source: >> For example tps is on i2c: >> [ 1.961613] tps65218 0-0024: forgot to call call device_init_wakeup? >> [ 1.968340] tps65218 0-0024: failed to set up wakeup irq >> >> May be you can register wakeup-source only if I2C_CLIENT_WAKE flag is >> set in client->flags? > > Makes sense, I'll prepare a new version. > > Just to confirm: do you see any issues with these 2 patches if you do > not modify the drivers to drop calls enable_irq_wake() from them? No, I didn't test w/o dropping enable_irq_wake() calls. I will do that tomo. Is this to verify that these 2 patches can be added w/o dropping enable_irq_wake() from other i2c drivers currently using them? Regards Vignesh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html