On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 11:39, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> If a device is part of the wake-up path, it should indicate this by
> setting its power.wakeup_path field. This allows the genpd core code to
> keep the device enabled during system suspend when needed.
>
> As regulators powering devices are not handled by genpd, the driver
> handles these itself, and thus must skip regulator control when the
> device is part of the wake-up path.
>
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Note that I don't really need this on the Renesas Ebisu-4D board, as
> there is no regulator or PM Domain controlling power to the GPIO
> expander on that board. I did want to have all wake-up path processing
> implemented in the driver for completeness, and did test its behavior
> with gpio-keys configured as a wake-up source.
All above makes perfect sense to me.
>
> However, while this approach is known to work fine on other boards, with
> other GPIO and interrupt controllers (gpio-rcar, irq-renesas-irqc,
> irq-renesas-intc-irqpin), it wouldn't work on Ebisu-4D, due to different
> device suspend ordering.
>
> The proper ordering is:
> 1. When gpio-keys is suspended, its suspend handler calls
> enable_irq_wake(), invoking pca953x_irq_set_wake(), and causing
> pca953x_chip.wakeup_path to be incremented,
> 2. When gpio-pca953x is suspended, it checks pca953x_chip.wakeup_path,
> and marks the device to be part of the wake-up path.
Right.
>
> However, gpio-keys is suspended _after_ gpio-pca953x, breaking the
> scheme :-(
Would it make sense to fixup the ordering issue via creating a
parent/child relationship or setting up a device link?
>
> So depending on topology, this may work, or not...
> ---
> drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c
> index 88c94d155e218535..349d0ccb5285a6c4 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c
> @@ -153,6 +153,7 @@ struct pca953x_chip {
> u8 irq_trig_fall[MAX_BANK];
> struct irq_chip irq_chip;
> #endif
> + atomic_t wakeup_path;
>
> struct i2c_client *client;
> struct gpio_chip gpio_chip;
> @@ -581,6 +582,11 @@ static int pca953x_irq_set_wake(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int on)
> struct gpio_chip *gc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
> struct pca953x_chip *chip = gpiochip_get_data(gc);
>
> + if (on)
> + atomic_inc(&chip->wakeup_path);
> + else
> + atomic_dec(&chip->wakeup_path);
> +
> return irq_set_irq_wake(chip->client->irq, on);
> }
>
> @@ -1100,7 +1106,10 @@ static int pca953x_suspend(struct device *dev)
>
> regcache_cache_only(chip->regmap, true);
>
> - regulator_disable(chip->regulator);
> + if (atomic_read(&chip->wakeup_path))
> + device_set_wakeup_path(dev);
> + else
> + regulator_disable(chip->regulator);
>
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -1110,10 +1119,12 @@ static int pca953x_resume(struct device *dev)
> struct pca953x_chip *chip = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> int ret;
>
> - ret = regulator_enable(chip->regulator);
> - if (ret != 0) {
> - dev_err(dev, "Failed to enable regulator: %d\n", ret);
> - return 0;
> + if (!atomic_read(&chip->wakeup_path)) {
> + ret = regulator_enable(chip->regulator);
> + if (ret != 0) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to enable regulator: %d\n", ret);
> + return 0;
> + }
> }
>
> regcache_cache_only(chip->regmap, false);
> --
> 2.17.1
>
Looks good to me!
Reviewed-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Kind regards
Uffe
