Re: [patch]GPIO button is supposed to wake the system up if the wakeup attribute is set

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2014/4/16 20:35, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 09:48 PM, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2014/4/15 20:38, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>> On Monday 14 April 2014 09:12 PM, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>>> ping...
>>>>
>>>> On 2014/4/10 18:48, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>>>>>
>>> I think when we say irq_wake_enable() then based on underlying HW, it
>>> should not turn off the irq if it is require for the wakeup. I mean it
>>> need to be handle in the hw specific callbacks to keep enabling the
>>> wakeup irq on suspend also.
>> I failed to see why this can't be generic to all of the GPIO buttons for
>> suspend wakeup. Do you see any cases broken by this proposal?
> 
> My point here is that if underlying HW needs to have irq enabled for
> wakup then it need to handle in centralized location i.e. the driver
> which is implementing it for the irq callbacks.
> Otherwise, we need to change this on multiple places who needs wakeups
> which is vast in nature like sd driver for sdcard insert/remove etc.
> almost all drivers which need wakeups through GPIOs.

I think we have to handle this driver by driver. I didn't see how can we
make it in a centralized location. Looking forward to see your proposal.

> 
>>> For me, I have key which is interrupt based from PMIC, not based on GPIO
>>> and on that if I set it to IRQF_EARLY_RESUME then it works fine.
>>>
>> IRQF_NO_SUSPEND - Do not disable this IRQ during suspend
>> IRQF_EARLY_RESUME - Resume IRQ early during syscore instead of at device
>> resume time.
>>
>> IRQF_NO_SUSPEND is exactly what I want, instead of IRQF_EARLY_RESUME.
>> Can you please send your proposal/code to help me understand why this
>> has to hw specific and why IRQF_EARLY_RESUME is better than
>> IRQF_NO_SUSPEND?
> 
> IRQF_EARLY_RESUME helps to re-enable mask or irq before parent interrupt
> resume and so parent isr handler sees the irq flag enabled when it try
> to scan source of interrupt. Otherwise parent isr handler treat this as
> spurious interrupt and does not call handler as irq flag disabled for that.
> 
> This only happen when on resume, parent inettrupt enabled before the
> child interrupt on irq resume. Because as soon as parent isr re-enabled
> on resume, its hadnler get called before actually child interrupt
> enabled. This is what I observed mainly on PMIC and its sub irq. Not
> observed on SoC level of interrupts.
> 

This is expected behavior. I think I still need IRQF_NO_SUSPEND here.
What I want is, this IRQ is able to generate pm wakeup event to wake the
system up. It's enough for my case.

Did you see a failing case of my patch?

Thanks,
-Aubrey
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Media Devel]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Wireless Networking]     [Linux Omap]

  Powered by Linux