On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:21 PM, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 12:57:46 +0530 "Shilimkar, Santosh" > <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:32 PM, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 11:18:09 +0530 "Shilimkar, Santosh" >> > <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 8:35 AM, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, 3 Sep 2012 22:59:06 -0700 "Shilimkar, Santosh" >> >> > <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> >> >> After thinking bit more on this, the problem seems to be coming >> >> >> mainly because the gpio device is runtime suspended bit early than >> >> >> it should be. Similar issue seen with i2c driver as well. The i2c issue >> >> >> was discussed with Rafael at LPC last week. The idea is to move >> >> >> the pm_runtime_enable/disable() calls entirely up to the >> >> >> _late/_early stage of device suspend/resume. >> >> >> Will update this thread once I have further update. >> >> > >> >> > This won't be late enough. IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND takes effect after all >> >> > the _late callbacks have been called. >> >> > I, too, spoke to Rafael about this in San Diego. He seemed to agree with me >> >> > that the interrupt needs to be masked in the ->suspend callback. any later >> >> > is too late. >> >> > >> >> Thanks for information about your discussion. Will wait for the patch then. >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> santosh >> > >> > I already sent a patch - that is what started this thread :-) >> > >> > I include it below. >> > You said "The patch doesn't seems to be correct" but didn't expand on why. >> > Do you still think it is not correct? I wouldn't be surprised if there is >> > some case that it doesn't handle quite right, but it seems right to me. >> > >> Sorry I though you were talking about moving the "Checking wakeup interrupts" >> bit early as discussed on the follow up of alternate suggested patch to make >> use of IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND. >> >> I think we need to fix the issue seen with ' IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND' >> patch. That is at least the expected way to manage suspend and wakeup >> irq masks for a IRQCHIP. > > That is what I thought at first too. But when talking to Rafael he said that > IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND was intended mainly for clock interrupts. For other > less fundamental interrupts, doing the mask/unmask in suspend/resume > callbacks is sufficient and simpler... and actually works. > That is not the how I undetand IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND use. I thought it can be used for any IRQ chip for masking or setting wakeup on interrupts lines managed by that chip for suspend. May be I am wrong. > IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND is currently used by precisely two drivers: > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-wakeupgen.c > and > drivers/mfd/pm8xxx-irq.c > > which suggests that it isn't widely used and quite possibly doesn't actually > work in general. I have seen lot more platforms use in downstream kernels. Also seen recently patches on the linux-arm list for couple of platforms. > > Maybe we need to start a new thread and pester Rafael or Thomas Gleixner > to either explain what is intended for this case, or to fix > IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND so that it can be used in general. > Sounds a good idea. Since you already had discussion with Rafael, probably you can describe the issue better. Regards Santosh -- 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
