On 06/28/2012 06:10 PM, Franky Lin wrote:
> On 06/28/2012 03:59 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>
>> On 06/28/2012 05:53 PM, Franky Lin wrote:
>>> I found one interesting thing. When I added the print info to see when
>>> runtime_suspend/resume get called, it seems like the suspend/resume is
>>> unbalance during boot. Resume got called more than suspend. So I hack
>>> the code to make sure suspend and resume are called in pair. A resume
>>> without suspend will do nothing and return immediately. This also makes
>>> the hang vanish.
>>
>> I am not 100% sure I follow. On boot I would expect to see a
>> resume/suspend due to the probe on the irq bank and then I would expect
>> to see another resume from the acquisition of the gpio, however, I would
>> not expect a suspend until the gpio is freed, which I don't believe you
>> are doing.
>>
>> Can you share your hack? Just paste the diff? This may help me
>> understand more.
>>
>
> OK.
> This is what I saw in the log:
> [ 0.171844] dummy:
> [ 0.172912] NET: Registered protocol family 16
> [ 0.173431] GPMC revision 6.0
> [ 0.173492] gpmc: irq-52 could not claim: err -22
> [ 0.177551] ??????omap_gpio_runtime_resume
> [ 0.178619] OMAP GPIO hardware version 0.1
> [ 0.178649] !!!!!omap_gpio_runtime_suspend
> [ 0.178771] ??????omap_gpio_runtime_resume
> [ 0.179351] !!!!!omap_gpio_runtime_suspend
> [ 0.179504] ??????omap_gpio_runtime_resume
> [ 0.180023] !!!!!omap_gpio_runtime_suspend
> [ 0.180145] ??????omap_gpio_runtime_resume
> [ 0.180694] !!!!!omap_gpio_runtime_suspend
> [ 0.180847] ??????omap_gpio_runtime_resume
> [ 0.181365] !!!!!omap_gpio_runtime_suspend
> [ 0.181518] ??????omap_gpio_runtime_resume
> [ 0.182037] !!!!!omap_gpio_runtime_suspend
There a 6 resume/suspend pairs here one for probing each of the 6 gpio
banks. So this makes sense.
> [ 0.185089] omap_mux_init: Add partition: #1: core, flags: 2
> [ 0.186462] omap_mux_init: Add partition: #2: wkup, flags: 2
> [ 0.186584] error setting wl12xx data: -38
> [ 0.189788] _omap_mux_get_by_name: Could not find signal
> uart1_rx.uart1_rx
> [ 0.189788] _omap_mux_get_by_name: Could not find signal
> uart1_rx.uart1_rx
> [ 0.239501] ??????omap_gpio_runtime_resume
> [ 0.239532] ??????omap_gpio_runtime_resume
> [ 0.241058] usbhs_omap: alias fck already exists
> [ 0.244781] ??????omap_gpio_runtime_resume
Yes, these 3 resumes at the end are most likely caused by calls to
omap_gpio_request(). In other words, 3 gpios are acquired. So that is
expected and looks fine to me.
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
> index c4ed172..bca3985 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
> @@ -1146,7 +1146,7 @@ static int __devinit omap_gpio_probe(struct
> platform_device *pdev)
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME)
> static void omap_gpio_restore_context(struct gpio_bank *bank);
> -
> +static int flag = 0;
> static int omap_gpio_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
> {
> struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dev);
> @@ -1155,6 +1155,8 @@ static int omap_gpio_runtime_suspend(struct device
> *dev)
> unsigned long flags;
> u32 wake_low, wake_hi;
>
> + flag ++;
> +
> spin_lock_irqsave(&bank->lock, flags);
>
> /*
> @@ -1221,6 +1223,11 @@ static int omap_gpio_runtime_resume(struct device
> *dev)
> u32 l = 0, gen, gen0, gen1;
> unsigned long flags;
>
> + if (flag)
> + flag--;
> + else
> + return 0;
> +
> spin_lock_irqsave(&bank->lock, flags);
> _gpio_dbck_enable(bank);
I guess that this would also avoid the context restore, so I could see
it would work, but this is definitely not right. Ok, well let me look
into the restore.
Thanks
Jon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
