On 1/8/24 11:58 AM, claudiu beznea wrote:
[...]
>>> From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> The runtime PM implementation will disable clocks at the end of
>>> ravb_probe(). As some IP variants switch to reset mode as a result of
>>> setting module standby through clock disable APIs, to implement runtime PM
>>> the resource parsing and requesting are moved in the probe function and IP
>>> settings are moved in the open function. This is done because at the end of
>>> the probe some IP variants will switch anyway to reset mode and the
>>> registers content is lost. Also keeping only register specific operations
>>> in the ravb_open()/ravb_close() functions will make them faster.
>>>
>>> Commit moves IRQ requests to ravb_probe() to have all the IRQs ready when
>>> the interface is open. As now IRQs gets and requests are in a single place
>>> there is no need to keep intermediary data (like ravb_rx_irqs[] and
>>> ravb_tx_irqs[] arrays or IRQs in struct ravb_private).
>>
>> There's one thing that you probably didn't take into account: after
>> you call request_irq(), you should be able to handle your IRQ as it's
>> automatically unmasked, unless you pass IRQF_NO_AUTOEN to request_irq().
>> Your device may be held i reset or even powered off but if you pass IRQF_SHARED to request_irq() (you do in a single IRQ config), you must
>> be prepared to get your device's registers read (in order to ascertain
And, at least on arm32, reading a powered off (or not clocked?) device's
register causes an imprecise external abort exception -- which results in a
kernel oops...
>> whether it's your IRQ or not). And you can't even pass IRQF_NO_AUTOEN
>> along with IRQF_SHARED, according to my reading of the IRQ code...
>
> Good point!
>
>>> This is a preparatory change to add runtime PM support for all IP variants.
>>
>> I don't readily see why this is necessary for the full-fledged RPM
>> support...
>
> I tried to speed up the ravb_open()/ravb_close() but missed the IRQF_SHARED
I doubt that optimizing ravb_{open,close}() is worth pursuing, frankly...
> IRQ. As there is only one IRQ requested w/ IRQF_SHARED, are you OK with
> still keeping the rest of IRQs handled as proposed by this patch?
I'm not, as this doesn't really seem necessary for your main goal.
It's not clear in what state U-Boot leaves EtherAVB...
[...]
MBR, Sergey
