Hi Geert, On 16/11/15 10:48, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [snip] >>> Handling it automatically needs more bookkeeping than a simple reference >>> count. >> >> So what would you suggest? Adding a pm_runtime_register_irq() API that >> would register an IRQ with the device that you want RPM to handle? Not >> sure if there is a better/easier way to handle this. > > The irqchip needs to keep track how many times request_irq() has been > called, cfr. your suggestion above. > > On the other side, the system needs to keep track how many times request_irq() > has been called for each irqchip, so it can subtract those numbers from the > irqchip's counters during suspend of the device, and re-add them during resume. > So we need at least a "struct device *" parameter for request_irq(). > devm_request_irq() already has that, but not all drivers use that. Yes that would make sense. However, I am wondering if the syscore suspend/resume operators could be used here to do something like ... pm_runtime_disable(dev); if (!pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev)) chip->irq_runtime_suspend(data); > However, I think this should be looked at into the context of "[RFD] > Functional dependencies between devices". > https://lwn.net/Articles/662205/ > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/27/388 > > There can be other dependencies than interrupts between devices. > All functions using dependencies need a "struct device *" parameter to > record information. Yes I like the sound of that. That would be ideal. However, I am guessing that that is a way off at the moment ... Cheers Jon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
