On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 20:41, Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 1:41 PM Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Processing SDIO interrupts while dw_mmc is suspended (or partly
> > suspended) seems like a bad idea. We really don't want to be
> > processing them until we've gotten ourselves fully powered up.
> >
> > You might be wondering how it's even possible to become suspended when
> > an SDIO interrupt is active. As can be seen in
> > dw_mci_enable_sdio_irq(), we explicitly keep dw_mmc out of runtime
> > suspend when the SDIO interrupt is enabled. ...but even though we
> > stop normal runtime suspend transitions when SDIO interrupts are
> > enabled, the dw_mci_runtime_suspend() can still get called for a full
> > system suspend.
> >
> > Let's handle all this by explicitly masking SDIO interrupts in the
> > suspend call and unmasking them later in the resume call. To do this
> > cleanly I'll keep track of whether the client requested that SDIO
> > interrupts be enabled so that we can reliably restore them regardless
> > of whether we're masking them for one reason or another.
> >
> > It should be noted that if dw_mci_enable_sdio_irq() is never called
> > (for instance, if we don't have an SDIO card plugged in) that
> > "client_sdio_enb" will always be false. In those cases this patch
> > adds a tiny bit of overhead to suspend/resume (a spinlock and a
> > read/write of INTMASK) but other than that is a no-op. The
> > SDMMC_INT_SDIO bit should always be clear and clearing it again won't
> > hurt.
> >
> > Without this fix it can be seen that rk3288-veyron Chromebooks with
> > Marvell WiFi would sometimes fail to resume WiFi even after picking my
> > recent mwifiex patch [1]. Specifically you'd see messages like this:
> > mwifiex_sdio mmc1:0001:1: Firmware wakeup failed
> > mwifiex_sdio mmc1:0001:1: PREP_CMD: FW in reset state
> >
> > ...and tracing through the resume code in the failing cases showed
> > that we were processing a SDIO interrupt really early in the resume
> > call.
> >
> > NOTE: downstream in Chrome OS 3.14 and 3.18 kernels (both of which
> > support the Marvell SDIO WiFi card) we had a patch ("CHROMIUM: sdio:
> > Defer SDIO interrupt handling until after resume") [2]. Presumably
> > this is the same problem that was solved by that patch.
> >
> > [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190404040106.40519-1-dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [2] https://crrev.com/c/230765
> >
> > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 4.14.x
> > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > I didn't put any "Fixes" tag here, but presumably this could be
> > backported to whichever kernels folks found it useful for. I have at
> > least confirmed that kernels v4.14 and v4.19 (as well as v5.1-rc2)
> > show the problem. It is very easy to pick this to v4.19 and it
> > definitely fixes the problem there.
> >
> > I haven't spent the time to pick this to 4.14 myself, but presumably
> > it wouldn't be too hard to backport this as far as v4.13 since that
> > contains commit 32dba73772f8 ("mmc: dw_mmc: Convert to use
> > MMC_CAP2_SDIO_IRQ_NOTHREAD for SDIO IRQs"). Prior to that it might
> > make sense for anyone experiencing this problem to just pick the old
> > CHROMIUM patch to fix them.
> >
> > Changes in v2:
> > - Suggested 4.14+ in the stable tag (Sasha-bot)
> > - Extra note that this is a noop on non-SDIO (Shawn / Emil)
> > - Make boolean logic cleaner as per https://crrev.com/c/1586207/1
> > - Hopefully clear comments as per https://crrev.com/c/1586207/1
> >
> > drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.h | 3 +++
> > 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> Ulf: are you the right person to land this? With 5.2-rc1 out it might
> be a good time for it? To refresh your memory about this patch:
>
> * Patch v1 was posted back on April 10th [1] so we're at about 1.5
> months of time for people to comment about it now. Should be more
> than enough.
Apologize for the delay, not sure why this has slipped through my
filters. Anyway, let me have a look at it now.
>
> * Shawn Lin saw it and didn't hate it. He had some confusion about
> how it worked and I've hopefully alleviated via extra comments / text.
>
> * Emil Renner Berthing thought it caused a regression for him but then
> tested further and was convinced that it didn't. This is extra
> confirmation that someone other than me did try the patch and found it
> to not break things. ;-)
>
> * It has been reviewed by Guenter Roeck (in v2)
One question, I am guessing you are considering
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/17/761 as the long term solution, and
thus $subject patch should go as fix+stable? No?
>
> [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190410221237.160856-1-dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> -Doug
Kind regards
Uffe
