On 2014/4/21 3:39, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 01:23:11PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote: >> On 2014/4/18 7:54, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>> Hi Aubrey, >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 12:42:24AM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> The driver does call enable_irq_wake() in its suspend routine to prepare >>> the interrupt in question to be used as a wakeup source. Why isn't it >>> enough? It seems to me that your platform code should properly handle >>> this case instead of relying on the driver to modify IRQ flags. >> >> Yes, gpio_keys_suspend() does call enable_irq_wake() to enable the irq >> of the button. So when the button is pressed, hardware interrupt from >> this irq does occur. >> >> However, after gpio_keys_suspend(), irq_desc of this irq will be >> disabled if there is no IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag. So when the hardware >> interrupt occurs, the irq handler won't call the action of the irq desc. >> That is, for this case, even if the driver call enable_irq_wake() during >> suspend, the irq handler in this driver won't be called because it's an >> action handler, not a irq handler. > > Right, so what I am saying is that enable_irq_wake() should really be > taking care of that and ensuring that if device is marked as wakeup > source it should prepare irq handler code to run all necessary parts > instead of sprinkling random flags all over individual drivers. > If the IRQ is shared, how to handle the case of the one is marked as wakeup source and the other is not? 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
