On 21/12/17 16:15, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 20 December 2017 at 09:18, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> sdhci_enable_irq_wakeups() is already called by sdhci_suspend_host() so
>> sdhci-pci should not need to call it. However sdhci_suspend_host() only
>> calls it if wakeups are enabled, and sdhci-pci does not enable them until
>> after calling sdhci_suspend_host(). So move the calls to
>> sdhci_pci_init_wakeup() before calling sdhci_suspend_host(), and
>> stop calling sdhci_enable_irq_wakeups(). That results in some
>> simplification because sdhci_pci_suspend_host() and
>> __sdhci_pci_suspend_host() no longer need to be separate functions.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-pci-core.c | 58 ++++++++++++++-------------------------
>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-pci-core.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-pci-core.c
>> index 110c634cfb43..2ffc09f088ee 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-pci-core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-pci-core.c
>> @@ -39,10 +39,29 @@
>> static void sdhci_pci_hw_reset(struct sdhci_host *host);
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
>> -static int __sdhci_pci_suspend_host(struct sdhci_pci_chip *chip)
>> +static int sdhci_pci_init_wakeup(struct sdhci_pci_chip *chip)
>> +{
>> + mmc_pm_flag_t pm_flags = 0;
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < chip->num_slots; i++) {
>> + struct sdhci_pci_slot *slot = chip->slots[i];
>> +
>> + if (slot)
>> + pm_flags |= slot->host->mmc->pm_flags;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return device_init_wakeup(&chip->pdev->dev,
>> + (pm_flags & MMC_PM_KEEP_POWER) &&
>> + (pm_flags & MMC_PM_WAKE_SDIO_IRQ));
>
> A couple of comments here.
>
> Wakeup settings shouldn't be changed during system suspend. That means
> we shouldn't call device_init_wakeup() (or device_set_wakeup_enable()
> for that matter) here.
>
> Instead, device_init_wakeup() should be called during ->probe(), while
> device_set_wakeup_enable() should normally *not* have to be called at
> all by drivers. There are a exceptions for device_set_wakeup_enable(),
> however it should not have to be called during system suspend, at
> least.
>
> Of course, I realize that you are not changing the behavior in this
> regards in this patch, so I am fine this anyway.
>
> My point is, that the end result while doing this improvements in this
> series, should strive to that device_init_wakeup() and
> device_set_wakeup_enable() becomes used correctly. I don't think that
> is the case, or is it?
Unfortunately we don't find out what the SDIO driver wants to do (i.e
pm_flags & MMC_PM_WAKE_SDIO_IRQ) until suspend.
I considered enabling wakeups by default but wasn't sure that would not
increase power consumption in devices not expecting it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
